Shaw66

Sorry, but that's laughable. You must not have seen Cookie. He was one of the great athletes and great ball carriers of his time. He was All-Pro four times. Braxton never led the team in rushing (haha, of course he played with Simpson), but one season he wasn't even second in rushing. In fact, Braxton got his yards BECAUSE he played with Simpson. Fergie would fake the pitch to Simpson and give it Braxton up the middle. The fake to Simpson was essentially a play fake - the entire defense had to honor it, and a great offensive line created holes that anyone could run through. Anyone just happened to be Braxton.

The Bears had Sayers and Payton and some other good players. Browns had Brown and Leroy Kelly. Many people don't remember how good Kelly was, because he played in Jim Brown's wake. When Brown retired and people commented that the Browns would be left without a running back, Brown said that was wrong, because they had Kelly. Brown was correct. Only Dorsett and Smith are in the HOF. Bills have Simpson and Thomas, with LeSean McCoy likely and Frank Gore a lock, if you want to count him. Pro Football Reference has an interesting metric where they measure Hall of Fame worthiness. Running backs who deserve to be in Hall of Fame. Some observations on their list: Top 10, in order: Payton, Brown, Sanders, Smith, Tomlinson, Simpson, Dickerson, Peterson, Faulk, Terrell Davis. Peterson is a lock, as is Gore, who is 11th. Thomas is 14. McCoy is the next guy on the list who isn't in. He's 20th, ahead of Curtis Martin, Leroy Kelly, and Tony Dorsett, who all are in. The next guys on the list are Roger Craig (not in), Bettis and Riggins (both in), Lynch ( a lock), Hornung (in), and - get this -are you ready? - Cookie Gilchrist. Simpson, Thomas, McCoy, Lynch, Gilchrist. Two absolute sure-fire Hall of Famers, two on the bubble, and Cookie. Damn good.

The Jets acquired an aging, somewhat prickly Hall of Fame quarterback when the Green Bay Packers decided it was time to move on from him, only to discover that the guy brought baggage that offset his diminishing skills. Fifteen years later, the Jets did the exact same thing again, apparently with the same result. One of the most delicious sports stories of all time, at least for AFCE fans. Woody Johnson is one of those owners who demonstrate how important ownership is to the success of a franchise.

I really didn't want to start a discussion about the backs in Bills' history, but I should have known that's what would happen. What I wanted to do was to start a discussion about Cook from the perspective of the great backs of the past. I think what I've thought all along, and what the comments hear reinforce, is that Cook really hasn't been all that good. There's a good argument to be made that at this point in his career, Cook may not be in the Bills' top 10. For example, I guess when push comes to shove, I might take McGahee over Cook. Obviously, I'd take Marshawn, even the Buffalo Marshawn, over Cook. Probably Travis Henry. What Cook has going for him is his surprising speed and acceleration and his route running. But to this point in his career, I have trouble getting past his fumbles and his drops. There's a lack of concentration on display that makes me hope that (1) he changes or (2) someone else emerges. I think his job is at risk unless and until he catches the ball and holds onto it more consistently.

Wow. Marshawn. I don't count him on my Bills top-five lists because he didn't really emerge as a great back until after he left. The talent was there, and we all could see it, but between his emotional state and the Bills' dysfunction, he wasn't the great back he would become later. McGahee, in my mind, never was the guy he'd been before the injury. He was a warrior, but I never saw him as a dominant back like the five I started with. Actually, the Bills SECOND five is really pretty good. Something like Lynch, McGahee, Spiller, Henry, and Jackson. I said I think the Bills' top-five is the best in the league. The Bills' second five has to be better than any other team's second five. A lot of solid ball carriers on that list. And Travis Henry. We've been blessed with running backs.

Is there a Bills running back from the past whom, if you could bring him back in his prime, you would start in place of James Cook? I’ve always maintained that the Bills have the best stable of running backs in the history of the league. No other team can match a top five of Gilchrist, Simpson, Cribbs, Thomas, and McCoy. Fred Jackson is my number six, and he’d be number three for many other teams. Let’s skip the obvious choices. Gilchrist was a completely different style of running back, but he ran like and was as good as Derrick Henry. I don’t care if Cookie can’t run pass patterns, he’d play ahead of Cook. Simpson is a top-five all-time running back, and Thomas is at least a top-ten guy. I know, some of you would put them in the other order, but forget that for now. It goes without saying that either one would start ahead of Cook. I didn’t see a lot of Cribbs, but from what I recall of him, Cook would back him up. I think I’d take McCoy over Cook. Different styles, but Shady was special. Finally, Fred Jackson. I loved Freddie, but I think he’s the only great Bills back who would be a backup to Cook. What do you think? Does Cook make the top five?

Yeah, I get it, but don't be shocked. He's probably in the top 5 of college coaches, and his team should be something like top 10 in talent. Not many schools put a combination of coaching and talent on the floor like that. 24/7 Sports ranked UConn's 2023 recruiting class as third in the country, and they lost only one of those guys to the NBA. The same site ranked their 2024 class at #10. UConn got two guys who should play through the portal. ESPN has them #3 in the pre-preseason rankings. UConn will be disappointed with a run only to the Elite 8.

UConn lost three to the NBA after the first title. Hurley went to the portal and got a shooter, and he had a good recruiting year. UConn is now losing three more to the NBA, he had one of the best recruiting classes in the country, and he's gotten another one or two guys through the portal. Not since UCLA (maybe Florida) has a school cruised through the NCAA tournament as easily as UConn has for two straight years. It's because Hurley has shown that he can take talent and get them to play at a really high level. After one game this past season, when asked how UConn won so easily, he said, "Well, if you play elite offense, play elite defense, and outrebound them, there isn't much the other team can do." That can be said about every game his teams have played in the tournament for two years running. He's restocked the team again. It's a tough task, but don't be surprised to see a three-peat. Then he'll go to the Knicks or the 76ers.

Belated happy birthday, Kim. Thinking of you often!

I'm going to Seattle and Detroit. Four games in Orchard Park.

I think Super Bowl experience is really important. I've been to one, and I'll be much better prepared next time.

I've done a lot. There is only one thing left: Be there when the Bills win the Lombardi. Nothing else matters, football-wise.

Thanks. I watch this every time it's posted. Fantastic!

No, I don't have a free agent they should target. There isn't one now. But as I said, they missed out on Rodgers. Stafford and Goff were available. I was talking more in general. I think if you don't have the right QB, and I don't think the Dolphins do, then every move you consider has to be evaluated in terms of how it affects your ability to get a QB. You have to be looking at every QB in the league who might be available, and you have to be studying every draft class. If the next good QB draft class is next year or two years from now, you need to be planning to get within the top 10, better top 5, picks. If you see what looks like the right QB coming in free agency, you need to be planning your cap space to be able to be in the bidding war for him. After you have all those plans, draft and FA, in place, then you do the best you can with whatever picks and cap space you have left. QB has to be your number 1 priority, and you can't make any moves that will limit your ability to go after a QB who looks like he'll be a keeper. From what I understand from posts in this thread, with Hill's contract, now Waddle's contract and what's likely to be Tua's contract, the Dolphins will be all in on Tua, because they won't have the resources to get a top QB for several years. They'll be good enough to be outside the top 10 draft choices, and even if they did draft a QB, their cap situation will limit their ability to acquire other players to build with, because they'll have a lot of cap tied up in Tua.

Great post! Yes, it could be it's own thread - fantasies about dating NFL fans. Heck, it could be it's own forum. I dated a woman who moved from Houston to Nashville, and I never could figure out whether she counted on my list for the Oilers, the Titans, or the Texans. So, I went out with her two more times and counted her for all three. The woman I dated in New York was large enough to count for the Jets and the Giants.

Right. Burrow in the pocket is exquisite. Decisive and amazingly accurate. The good news for Bills fans is that it's easier to get better at early and late script (where I think Allen needs to improve) than it is to get better off script. I think what you see is largely what you get with Burrow, but Allen is going to continue to improve, which is a scary thought for the rest of the league. None of which has anything to do with Waddle!

I had a bucket list when I was young to date, at least once, a woman who was a fan of each NFL team. I was about 25 teams into the list when I met my wife, so I'm a Bills fan. I guess I'll never know what I would have thought of those other seven women. None of that is true, but I thought it was a fun story. Born and raised in Buffalo.

I've kept thinking about this, and I really like the distinction you've made here. I think it's useful to evaluate quarterback play in three categories: early script, late script, and off script. What you've said here is that Tua is good at the first, Goff the first and second. I think that's correct. I think, for example that both Purdy and Burrow are great early script and late script and weak off script. I think Mahomes is excellent in all three phases. I think Allen is good but still needs to improve early script and late script, and he's the best (with Mahomes) of all the current QBs off script.

All of the above. I think if you're a GM and you don't have one of the ten or so guys who are in the first two categories I described, all of your plans have to be driven by how you're going to get a QB. Maybe you're drafting one, maybe you're getting a free agent, so you're thinking a lot about how to get a top draft pick and how to put yourself in position to sign the occasional free agent. The free agent route means you need cap room, so if I'm looking for my QB, I'm not using up cap space on a Gabriel Davis. The Broncos haven't had much success, but I applaud them for being active. They swung and missed on Russell Wilson, but I think that their only choice without a QB was to take the best swings you could. However the Bills got into the situation, they needed to be swinging the year they drafted Manuel. The Bills took another swing on Tyrod (which was sort of a wasted swing - journeymen QBs usually just waste playing time that could be used on anyone with upstate. The Broncos, for example, took a swing on Siemian. It was also a miss, but at least it was a guy with real upside. I think every season the Dolphins stick with Tua is a season they aren't actively looking for the right guy. Extending him means they won't have cap space to be in the bidding when a free agent comes along. If I ran the Dolphins, for example, I would have been in the bidding for Aaron Rodgers. I just don't see any point in building a team around a guy I don't think I can with. I have to field a team, of course, but my team-building should not create impediments to find the right QB - for the long term I can't afford to restrict my draft picks or my cap space. It's just how I think an NFL team should be run. Obviously, the Dolphins think otherwise, and they have a smart coach and probably a smart GM, so what do I know?

Thanks. I hadn't focused on it in that detail, but I agree. That's how I see Goff, too. For me, Goff is very good until he isn't, and that's off-script - he just isn't very good when he has to create, or to continue the script metaphor, when he has to ad lib. To say differently what you said about Tua, to me he looks like a college QB executing a highly scripted offense where the first or second option always is open: drop, look, throw. If something tells him not to throw, the probability of success on the play goes down dramatically. It's almost as though Goff knows the whole script, and Tua memorized only the first few lines. Goff isn't my cup of tea, but at least I can get why the Lions signed him. If I were the Dolphins, I would be giving no thought to a big deal for deal. Painful as it is, scary as the future without a QB may look, I'd be moving on from Tua and getting to work finding a guy I think I can win with. Every year spent with Tua is a year the team is not moving toward a championship. Exactly. If you have your QB on his second deal, you can't afford Davis. If you have no QB, it just make sense to spend on a Davis.

Yeah, I hear you, and what you say makes sense. I see it a little differently. I'd say at any given time in the NFL there 2 to 5 QBs who essentially make their teams contenders every year. Rodgers was and may still be one. Josh, Patrick, Burrow's on my list. We coudl talk about the list, and different people would have some different guys on this list, but we pretty much know who those guys are. Then there are another half dozen guys or so who are good enough that when everything falls right, they might win a Super Bowl. Personally, I think Goff is one of those. He doesn't really scare me in August, but it all may come together for him in some year. If you're the GM, I think you have to swallow hard and pay the guy, which is what the Lions did. For me, however, Tua is not in that group. I think Tua is a system QB who's fine when he can run the offense on script and make quick throws. He's really good at that. But when the play has to be extended, he's really poor. Six to ten plays a game, maybe more, the play demands that your QB be creative. Mahomes and Allen are great at it. Goff is okay, Tua isn't even okay. On top of that, he's an injury risk. I think it's five-year mistake to give him a big second contract. He's going to disappoint them, and when they figure that out, it will be too late. I know, it's hard to let a guy walk who's been productive, but I think the Dolphins won't win with him.

Sotry. I loved yours and House, too. No hard feelings at all. They funny posts. But I did think it was interesting how many people said it was a bad move. They weren't posting in my thread!

I expected a few of these comments, and there have been some. However, I find it interesting that the general tenor of comments from people here is that the Dolphins are idiots for spending so much money on wideouts. Someone said Hill and Waddle will make more than the entire Bills wide receiver room. It's probably true. The question is whether Miami's offensive production will be THAT much better the Bills because they have these two guys. And the answer is, no. Whatever. We've had that discussion, and it was fun. We don't need to have it again. I, like many here, was glad to see that Miami did. I don't think they have the right quarterback, and it's really dumb to spend money on receivers if you don't have a quarterback. It just limits what you have when the right QB comes along. And because I don't think they have the right QB, I'm hoping that they give him a big contract. Then they're in cap hell and don't have a QB. That would be great.

I agree. And, to be fair to Beas, I'm not sure Shakir ever could be as good as Beasley was at the short area game. Yes, Shakir has some quickness and shiftiness, but Beasley really was elite in that category. Beasley was as good as Edelman, maybe better. But for sure, if the Bills try to use Shakir in to fill the Beasley role, they will be limiting his effectiveness. One of Beasley's principal limitations was that he wasn't a serious threat to go deep, which allowed defenses leave him one on one and just take their lumps on short balls. Defenses simply didn't worry much that Beasley would be running a crosser 20 yards downfield. Some guy playing Shakir tight man at the line of scrimmage is going to back off because it's Shakir, and that alone will reshape the defense in a way that creates opportunities for the offense. Samuel and Coleman present the same kind of problems. They can attack the defense in a lot of ways, and the strength of the passing game will be that they'll all be on the field at the same time. I'm repeating things other people have said here in the past couple of weeks, but it's important to remember that last season Davis was somewhat one-dimensional and Diggs, too, was a less-diversified threat. This season, if it's Samuel, Coleman, and Shakir on the field, the Bills will challenge defenses to protect against quick screens, slants, posts, corners, everything. All three of them present serious threats in different packages. If Brady does his job, and Allen does his job, there are going to be a lot of throws for uncontested catches.

My answer: I don't know. Seems to me (and to everyone else on this board) that the goal is to spread the ball around. The way to spread the ball around is to have a team of receivers that run routes that stress the defense in one way, and then have those receivers read and react to that stress. That's based on play calling, Allen making the correct pre-snap adjustments, Allen and the receivers making the correct post-snap reads and adjustments so that Allen throws accurately to guy who can make uncontested catch. I've always disliked the comment that "so-and-so has completed 17 of 20 passes to nine different receivers," but in fact that stat is one measure that will show whether the passing offense is working. What does that mean for Shakir? I think it means the same thing for Samuel and Coleman and Kincaid and MVS and Cook. If Allen is getting the ball to these receivers for uncontested catches, all of them have the talent to get serious yards after the catch. All of them need to be good at the things I said in the previous paragraph, and if they're all good at those things, all of them will be serious threats on the field, and they all will be successful.