HappyDays

I remember you being very high on Justin Jefferson who some saw as a slot only WR, so I hold this opinion in high regard. I don't like taking a slot only WR in the 1st but if JSN can play outside I would love that pick. You could effectively get a Diggs replicant on the other side of the field.

Be honest - when you put that thread title together, what kind of reaction did you expect?

For me Jalin Hyatt is the obvious selection if he's still there. I see the same criticisms about him that I remember seeing about DK Metcalf - he plays in a college offense and runs a limited route tree. I'm not making a 1:1 comparison to Metcalf but my point is analysts overthink this stuff. I see a player that runs really fast, tracks the ball, has great hands, and plays with a high level of competitiveness. The rest can be figured out.

If Beane has any self-awareness at all he will do anything other than draft a safety in the 1st round. Trade down if that's the only 1st round grade they have left. He has yet to draft a non-premium position in the 1st round, depending on how you count Edmunds. I'll be shocked if he does this.

In 7 of the last 10 Super Bowls, the losing team has been held below its season average, often substantially below. In 1 the losing team (Seattle losing to NE) scored their exact season average. Only in 2 - the Eagles last year and the Patriots in 2018 - did the losing team score more than their average. It is simply not true that top offenses can't be slowed down. It happens every year in the playoffs and usually in the Super Bowl. The Chiefs have been able to do it with less talent than us. Ditto for the Bengals. With the right coaching philosophy it can be done and most likely needs to for us to win a Super Bowl.

But they do. This past Super Bowl was an anomaly. Usually the winner is in fact holding their opponent below their season average for points scored. I already mentioned that the Chiefs defense held the Bengals offense to 20 points. And it's not like the Chiefs defense was super talented. They were below average in the regular season. But in critical moments their coaching/scheme allowed them to make difference making plays when it counted. The Chiefs game plan on defense in that game was nothing like our game plan. You can't just ignore that and blame it all on talent.

But it's a trend for the defense. Every year in the playoffs it's the same. Play passive and wait for the offense to make a mistake. It just isn't working. The whole philosophy needs to change. On offense Dorsey needs a philosophical change too. He needs to call games LESS aggressively. Be willing to stay patient. It was his first year on the job so I'm hoping he learned enough to improve. Frazier has been in the game for too long. At this point he is what he is. I just hope McDermott is more willing to press the issue in playoff games. What have we got to lose? Our current philosophy isn't working. They can stick to that philosophy throughout the regular season, it's proven to be effective. In the playoffs against other championship caliber teams they have to try something different.

I'm not asking us to shut down the Bengals or the Chiefs. I'm asking to at least slow them down and make it difficult. Get some punches in. Don't just sit back and let them bleed you out slowly. The Chiefs didn't shut down the Bengals, but they held them to 20 points in a game where their offense wasn't performing at its best. They got two interceptions and several sacks. That's a far cry from 27 points scored in 3 quarters. And yes we had injuries and general talent issues in that game, but you can't honestly say the Chiefs defense was that much more talented than us across the board even with our injuries. Coaching was the biggest difference. I don't see anyone giving the offense a pass. The defense couldn't have possibly held the Bengals below 10 points, no question. But likewise to what you're saying the offense's awful performance doesn't excuse the defenses's awful performance. And the defense making it look easy for our opponent is a 3 year trend now. At a certain point the coaching has to be held accountable when there are wide open receivers all over the field and no hint of a pass rush.

Chris Jones is incredible. But you can't convince me that their back 7 is more talented than our back 7. Chris Jones alone did not hold the Bengals to 20 points. Their game plan on defense was completely different. They pressed the WRs to give their guys a chance to disrupt the timing and they sent every pass rush concept they had to keep Burrow guessing. They got burned a couple times but they also had two interceptions and knocked Burrow around. Even if we had Chris Jones I don't think it would have mattered. Our game plan made it easy pitch and catch.

Injuries were a big problem. But the Chiefs didn't have Von Miller, Micah Hyde, or DaQuan Jones when they held the Bengals to 20 points. Even with our injuries was the Chiefs defense really that much more talented than the defense we fielded in the divisional round? Multiple rookie CBs including a 7th rounder, an iffy safety tandem, meh edge rushers. Chris Jones is obviously elite and Nick Bolton appears to be a rising star. But the Bengals scored 27 against us in a game where they only tried to score for 3 quarters. Against the Chiefs they fought to the very end and came away with 20. To me the difference in those outcomes is a coaching discrepancy much more than a talent discrepancy.

McDermott did what we hired him to do. He finally turned the culture of our moribund franchise around. Wherever the rest of his career goes I will never forget that he did that for us. All of the stats you posted attest to this. But sometimes success has an endpoint. Being successful at overcoming one challenge does not necessarily mean you will be successful at overcoming another. In fact the challenge the Bills are currently facing - compete for a Super Bowl with an elite QB - is arguably easier than the first challenge that McDermott overcame. And yet he has not proven that he is the man to do it. On the contrary, in three consecutive playoff appearances since Allen became an elite QB we have not even been competitive in our losses. You could say in the KC divisional round we were competitive, but really Josh Allen was competitive, the rest of the team was not. Which brings me to my next point... You want to talk about luck? How about this - McDermott had the benefit of his QB having arguably the greatest playoff game of all time, a #3 talent WR suddenly exploding for 200 yards and 4 TDs, and the opposing kicker taking 4 points off the board, and he still found a way to lose a game we were winning with 13 seconds left. That's a million dollar mix of lucky circumstances that he had nothing to do with and he blew the opportunity. I don't think McDermott has gotten materially better at any single thing since his first day on the job. He hasn't added any wrinkles to his defense. The Bengals marched up and down on our defensive scheme in week 17 until Hamlin's incident, and then McDermott had the audacity to trot out the same scheme in the divisional round and we predictably got embarrassed. I've lost my faith that he can ever leave his philosophical comfort zone and get this team led by an elite QB over the hump. Because despite all his talk about growth mindset he hasn't learned a thing. Unfortunately for McDermott he is in one sense a victim of Allen's success. If not for Allen we could afford to be patient with McDermott, rationalize that without a high-end QB he couldn't be blamed for any failure to reach the top, and since he did in fact turn the culture around why not let him see his mission through? But the clock is ticking on Allen's career. We simply can't afford to be patient. If this coming season ends with the same type of uncompetitive playoff exit, how can anyone honestly say that McDermott deserves more chances? Josh Allen will be 28 years old in 2024. There won't be many chances left after that.

Yep. In general this defense is missing a tone setter. The closest we've had is Jordan Poyer and as far as tone setters go that's not much. Milano and Edmunds are rangy but players aren't scared of them. Von is pretty laid back and a technician, not a brute. Rousseau is a gentle giant. On offense Allen and Diggs are tone setters. On defense we're missing someone that opposing players are afraid to go near. This is off topic but I've fallen in love with Jack Campbell as a 2nd round target. It's not about filling the hole we have at LB, it's about finding a tone setter. On film I see him stopping guys dead in their tracks and letting them hear about it. Give me that mean streak along with a more aggressive defensive philosophy. That's what championship defenses are made of.

Joe Marino broke it down very well on Locked on Bills last week. Frazier's defense is based around forcing QBs to stay patient and work their way down the field slowly without any mistakes. That's great against bad offenses. But for elite QBs in the playoffs it's too easy. Joe called it "death by 1,000 cuts" and he's exactly right. Talented well-coached offenses in intensive playoff games don't make mistakes. They're happy to take the easy plays all the way to the endzone. So you have to force their hand a little. Joe pointed out no turnovers forced in each of our last 3 playoff losses. Only 4 sacks. We are not letting our players try to make game changing plays. We have to be willing to press our CBs and live with the occasional deep completion. It's either that or die a slow death. That's the philosophical change this defense needs to get to a championship level.

I'm hearing Bobby Babich is the front runner to take the job. Apparently McDermott wanted Frazier to stay, so this was not a stealth firing. He genuinely wanted to take a year off after thinking it over but it's doubtful he ever returns to the Bills.

He has built a great regular season defense. But it was time for a change.

This is really weird timing, and not too long after Chad Hall decided to leave. What is going on with the coaching staff?

Here's the issue - "best season" for a MLB that's going to be paid what he'll get should include several game changing plays, ideally in critical moments. A forced fumble, a pick, a huge run stop on a 3rd or 4th down, a fumble recovery for a TD. Edmunds NEVER has plays like that. For him, his "best season" came down to being more consistent at the little things. Nothing wrong with that... but the real defensive superstars do a lot more than just the little things. Not so much a "line in the sand" as it is a good investment strategy. A team that isn't paying a QB and needs an influx of talent on the defense can afford to pay Edmunds more than a player at that level should make. It's the kind of signing that might make a lot of sense for the right team, but no sense for us as our team is currently constructed.

This is not a fair analysis because last year the drop off from Edmunds was to Dodson or Bernard. We aren't going into next year with one of them as our starting MLB. So the real question is about the drop off from Edmunds to whatever free agent we bring in to replace him. No stats from last year can answer that question.

I think it was already decided last year. Beane extends his guys a year early. LB is not a premium position and Edmunds even at his best does not make game changing plays. When you pay your QB, letting players like that go is a pretty easy decision.

Players don't take discounts for any reason. There is no such thing as a player taking a hometown discount. Here's what the man himself said: "Figure out a way," you can guess what he means. He's chasing one last big contract. The Bills understandably don't want to give it to him. On one hand I feel bad for Poyer. No one could ever accuse him of making business decisions in games. You could easily argue that he was underpaid relative to the level of play he gave us in his time here. He might feel a little bitter especially with his wife and his agent constantly in his ear. But by the end of the season you could see that he is slowing down. In the divisional round he was legitimately awful and I think personally responsible for the first two TDs the Bengals scored. Some team with a QB on a rookie deal can afford to pay him more than he should get based on his age. The Dolphins could make sense. For the Bills we have to rebalance the resources spent on offense versus the resources spent on defense. Letting Poyer go at his age is an easy decision in that context, even moreso than Edmunds.

Now you've done it. Two things you never bring up on an American forum - taxes and tipping.

The eyes emoji and the Buffalo image in the picture are causing the speculation, not just that they're working out. Of course it's possible and even likely that Von is just creating rampant speculation on purpose for fun.

This is a poor representation of that argument and I think you know this. Chiefs have multiple 1st/2nd tier at their position players - Brown, Thuney, Humphrey, and Kelce for sure. The Bills have one - Diggs. They also have better depth at the skill positions than we do and their 7th round RB was making plays I've never seen Singletary make. When you factor in the coaching how is there even a debate?

It would certainly make sense for both sides. The Titans need to be in rebuild mode. A RB approaching 30 doesn't help them. They need draft picks to help them move on from Tannehill, they've hit their ceiling with him. If we do all available restructures and let Edmunds walk we have enough money to afford Henry, OBJ, a low end MLB, and a decent interior OL. Go into the draft with no pressing needs. I like it.

I'm really not a fan of this idea. We would then have to sign a 3T just to have starting caliber talent there. Let's say we pay $5 million to replace him. That would save us just $5 million on the cap as opposed to just keeping him. I'd rather just keep the young player who has shown flashes and who will be motivated to show out in his contract year. I don't expect us to re-sign him but we might as well use up his 5th year option at this point.