Shaw66

This made me laugh. I agree with both of you. I think I have BOTH of those feelings. In the drought I fretted about how to even sniff the playoffs. I don't worry about that now. I'm much more comfortable. With Allen, my team is in it every year. At the same time, however, this is in no way like how Pats fans felt. I live in New England, and I know I'm not feeling what those people felt in the off-season. Heck, we're not feeling what Chiefs fans are feeling. After 2023, I can imagine a lot of Chiefs fans thinking, "We've got the QB, we've got the coach, we've got seriously successful personnel management, so do your thing for now and I'll tune in after Labor Day." Ain't a lot of Bills fans thinking like that this off season.

It's an interesting question. I think I spend the same amount of time here, and that's one measure of my interest. I think the level of my interest is the same as in the drought years, but I think the focus of my interest has changed. During the drought I thought about the holes, and whether the underperforming guy the Bills had at this position or that could be expected to get better. So, for example, iI spent a lot in the off-season thinking and talking about success for Tyrod - what would he look like and is it possible to get him there? Could he actually throw for X yards or run for Y or have a passer rating of Z? The current Bills are different. They don't have holes - at every position they have a legitimate professional who actually deserves to start in the NFL. They certainly would like to get better at most positions, but they have a talent level that makes them competitive at the top. And actually getting better at some positions (receiver being everyone's favorite position these days) is an important part of what it takes to win a Super Bowl. I'm not so interested in that improvement, I guess because I'm not sure whether it matters which positions get better - the real question is whether in some way, McBeane are making the team better. That's the real objective - is the team getting better, and is it on a credible path to a championship? So, I think the focus of my interest in the Bills is now on the coaches and the GM and what they're doing. What do I think of the job they're doing? Are they pushing change within the organization to achieve greater success on the field? Why are they doing the things they're doing, and do I have confidence in what they do? I rarely asked myself those questions during the drought, because there simply wasn't enough they could do in the draft and free agency to fill the holes, and there wasn't enough they could do to coach their way out of it, either. I mean, really, during the drought did anyone ask, "Are the coach and GM doing enough to get the Bills to the Super Bowl this year?" Of course not. That question was almost meaningless, because until the Bills had quality professionals filling all the holes, talk about winning the Super Bowl this year was silly.

Why do you think the current strategy is to invest in pass receivers? They didn't use any assets to trade up for a great rookie receiver. They didn't sign an expensive free agent - Samuel, Hollins, Claypool, MVS all were got on the cheap. They unloaded Diggs and they didn't want to pay Davis. None of that looks like a team that's investing in pass receivers.

Yeah, I get it. I don't think it's clear, at all, that if your #2 happens the Bills will go after a true #1. I don't think we really know that the Bills believe any longer that they need a true #1. And I think we'll find out, because I don't think Keon will emerge as a true #1. Next year at this time, we'll know if you're correct, and you may very well be. In 2024 the Bills will have a receiver who statistically is number one. They'll have a guy with 1300 yards and that guy will have the most targets. The announcers will say he emerged at the #1. But I don't think that'll make him a #1 receiver. For me, the question is whether the guy created those 1300 yards (that's what a true #1 does) or whether he was the guy in the system who got the most targets. Now, he has to be good to get the most targets, but that's not enough to be a true #1. I think a guy like St. Brown isn't a true #1 - he's great, but he needs the right system to create the opportunities he needs to be great.

No, I don't think it's going cheap. I think it's making decisions about where your dollars are best spent. I think the future we're heading into is one where teams will be reluctant to spend big dollars on star receivers, because it isn't money well spent. Receivers don't carry your team, any more than running backs do. What carries your team is a quarterback, an offensive line, and a good defense. You can't mix and match offensive linemen every year, drafting one and signing a free agent. The line needs continuity, and you can't have continuity if you're shuffling and reshuffling the line. But you can shuffle and reshuffle running backs. And I believe we're into an era where you also can shuffle and reshuffle receivers. That's why OBJ and Hopkins seem always to be on the market. Having a stud receiver isn't the key to winning, just like having a stud running back isn't the key.

I hear you, and you may be right. I mean, it's definitely a reset, I agree with that, but not at all of the type or magnitude of 2018. Beane inherited a team that didn't look at all like he wanted it to look, and he had only two choices - gradual or drastic change. The change in the receiver room is different, I think. Unless Davis had a monster 2023, he was always going to be gone, because the Bills wouldn't pay him what he could get in the market. Diggs may have been a surprise to McBeane as the 2023 season unfolded. Who knows all that went on, but increasingly I find myself wondering whether, once Brady took over, he began installing the concept they seem to be going with now - call it receiver by committee and Diggs just didn't cooperate with it. Diggs would be perfect in that kind of scheme - he could be better than Beasley at being Beasley, he could go deep, he was good at crossers. He had all the tools. But I wonder whether he didn't cooperate because he understood it as a demotion - he would no longer be the true number one guy, and I think that was important to him. But I think that what you're saying is that wherever the Bills are going with the receiver room - receiver by committee of classic stud #1 guy with a supporting cast, 2024 is a transitional year, and the receiver room won't be complete for another year or two. In reality, however, I think receiver by committee is a system where the receiver room ALWAYS is in transition. Certainly that's what has happened in KC since they unloaded their top dog, and what's going on in San Francisco is at least curiously suggestive that the transition has begun there. Receiver by committee is essentially a system that requires the GM to have an interesting collection of talented guys at receiver every year, and it's always in flux. In that sense, I'd say 2024 is not a reset - it's the first iteration of what the future is going to look like. MVS is a receiver-by-committee receiver. Samuel is too. Shakir is. The 2024 receiver room may be the first committee - not the first step in a reset, not a transition, just the first committee. In 2025, Beane will keep some of them, replace some others, and season after season there will be a new committee.

I think they really want to have Davis and Carter be in the regular rotation at their positions. I consider that starting, but that's just me. Point is, the first five guys the Bills took could all be playing significant roles on the team. They may not, but they all have talent that suggests they could. Three potential starters and two potential rotational roles.

That's well put. Thanks. I think you're correct. Of course, it doesn't mean that the coaching WILL improve, just that it isn't unreasonable to think that it will. I am certain, for example, that the work plans for each of the HC, coordinators, and the position coaches include targeted objectives designed to address identified deficiencies in coaching from last season. I don't expect a step back. Once again this season, the Bills will be one of the toughest outs identified on every opponents' schedule.

I agree, except I'm not expecting them to take a step back. I think they will be as competitive as they were last season, tenacious. They have the talent to play with anyone. Where I worry is with injuries. Even if I'm correct about their level of talent, their depth is really questionable. The problem with all the rookies, the rookies I think have chances to be serious contributors, is that they also could be less than adequate depth if they're counted on only as depth. As you say, they haven't played a down in the NFL, and all of them could prove to be disappointments.

Sorry. I absolutely agree with that. And I know you didn't say crisis. But I thought it wasn't unfair to make that reach after you suggested that I seem to be suggesting that the Brit was making the squad. You knew I didn't say or mean that, and I knew that you didn't say or mean crisis. On to football!

I'm not praying that they can. Well, I'm really hoping Bishop can play. But other than that, I don't think the Bills' 2024 results depend on any of the other rookies. If Bishop is playing significant snaps by October, the Bills will be fine. If more the rookies can play, the Bills will be better off, but they aren't necessary. They lost both starting receivers by design - neither was contributing enough to be significant losses to the team. They have a satisfactory replacement for their lost center. They may even be all set at safety without Bishop, but I'd rather see Bishop there. There's an important point that I think people are missing. I think MVS said it when asked whether the Bills need him to be a leader, or something like that. He said something to the effect that neither this receiver room nor any other one needs to be rescued by anyone, because the talent in every receiver room is amazing. He said every team has real dogs, fighting everything. The difference is coaching, preparation, luck, etc. And QB. I think it's true for multiple positions, not just receiver. The Bills have good players on the offensive line, and they will be successful whether or not VPG plays of not. The difference in quality of play between Morse and McGovern just isn't that significant. The difference in quality of play between Poyer and Hyde (2023 versions) and Edwards and Rapp just isn't that significant. People don't want to believe it, but it's true. Yes, you'd rather have the better player at every position, but you can't have that. What you need are good NFL players at every position, and you build from there. The Bills are in that position, so they aren't dependent on all their rookies playing immediately. All I've said is that I think that the Bills drafted a lot of guys who look like they could player sooner. That's a good thing, but it doesn't mean the Bills have a crisis if they don't.

Thanks. I'm definitely going there this fall.

Got it. When you said a friend took you after a game at the Ralph, I thought you meant they were on display at the stadium in Orchard Park. I'll have to go find them. I'd like to see that.

I actually played in one of those charity games, at D'Youville in 1967 or 68. I remember practically nothing from that game. A few years later I played in one against Redskins players. I remember that one because I was run over by an offensive lineman going after loose ball. Where are the old gates? I'd like to see them.

Obviously not the rugby guy. You're good at being snarky without trying. Yes, we all hope they can play at this level. But I think this season is different. For me, at least, in most seasons I think the 4th and 5th round picks, and beyond, are guys who probably will need a season or more before they become useful. Harrison Phillips is a good example. I hoped he'd develop, but I didn't expect much from him as a rookie. Shakier is another. It's a surprise to me when one of those guys plays early. But Van Pran-Granger is different. I'm not just hoping he'll start. He has credentials and play on film that suggests he can start soon. I don't think that because the Bills have a hole to fill - they don't have a hole. Left guard and center are manned by veterans who have shown they can play in the league. I think he could start because I looks like an usual talent to get in the fifth round. Is that true? I don't know; as I said earlier, there are reasons he dropped to the fifth round, and I don't know what those reasons are. As I've said, the whole draft looks unusual to me in that way. Solomon is another example. I don't think Solomon will be a star in the league; I think that because of his size, the league will get a book on him and take advantage of his size. However, while the league is trying to figure him out, I think the Bills may very well get valuable snaps out of him this year. Valuable snaps from a fifth-round edge rusher is unusual. The draft just looks different to me this year, and it is not because I think the Bills have holes. I don't think they have holes; we'd all like to see them stronger at some positions, but they don't have holes.

I didn't know these lawsuits were pending. Silly me. This will change college sports forever. It will suck the profit out of lots of programs, and without the profits, the programs will struggle. Just to get some sense of what this will mean: Imagine if Josh Allen, after his breakout season at Wyoming, could have "entered the portal" (in other words, become a free agent). Some school like Alabama or Southern Cal would have offered him a couple million dollars to transfer.

It's precisely because it's a complex position that it's not uncommon for centers to start early in the NFL. Mitch Morse stated as a rookie, and he wasn't and isn't the toughest or strongest guy. He started because smart guys who have played the position at a high level in college come into the league pretty far up the learning curve. Tackles, on the other hand, haven't been prepared in college to play NFL tackle. It's not a stretch to think he could start early, especially if Edwards underperforms at left guard. Remember, a lot of people here, correctly, said that moving McGregor potentially made the Bills weaker at two positions, even though they lost only one starter. If VPG can play, the Bills again are potentially weaker at only one position, and maybe not by much or for long.

My point was that they all are guys who've given good indication that they could play early. I won't be surprised if any of them is starting by mid-season, because they've all demonstrated some important characteristics. As someone said, VPG is a two-time all SEC guy, two-time national champion - I'm not going to be surprised if he starts. But he won't start out desperation on the Bills part - they will be fine with McGregor. Bishop is a highly rated guy, exactly in the mold of McDermott safeties, so I won't be surprised. But the Bills have two NFL veteran safeties, and Bishop won't start unless he's good enough. And Coleman, also highly rated, with a pretty interesting skill set. I won't be surprised. But no one will hand him the starting job. He has to beat out three or four credibly NFL veterans - Shakir, Samuel, MVS, and Claypool. So, no, I'm not saying they're locks. I'm saying they have something about them, each of them, that suggests they could play early.

Absolutely. My point was that it seems that NO GM, including Beane, had a third round grade on him. There must reasons why NO GM took him in the third or fourth rounds, and I doubt every GM's reason was lack of positional flexibility. So, that means he has some limitations that at least some GMs saw, including Beane. That makes me think that I'm being overly optimistic to think he's a rookie starter. We'll see.

Yes. In other words, you can be effective, maybe even more effective, without a classic #1. I've read that somewhere before. ☺️

Yes, that's correct. Coleman is a replacement, Bishop is a replacement, Van Pran-Granger is a replacement. But the interesting thing about is that the replacements look like they can play now, not spend three years working their way into the league. If Coleman starts, it will be because he can do the job, not because there was no one else. Bishop too. And VPG. They each have to take the job from veteran players who have real NFL starting experience, but what's interesting is that they no one will be surprised to if they win the jobs. For example, the Bills are not going to start VPG just because they project him as the center of the future. He'll start if he can do the job, and absent injury, only if he can do the job. McGregor won't be a failure at center - he might not be great, but he won't fail. As I said, what's amazing about this draft is how many rookies can legitimately win significant playing time. And, by the way, the fact that they have a fifth-rounder who may start on a Super Bowl contender is one of the core concepts McDermott explained when he first got here. He said the roster would improve every year, and he said he would build a culture where the veterans bring the young players up to speed quickly, so that you can get help out of the draft quickly. It's easier to put VPG into the starting lineup with Torrence and McGregor next to him than with whoever the guards were five years ago. If he has talent, the veterans will see it quickly, and they will work to integrate him. Same with Coleman, and Bishop (man, I wish they'd get Micah back on the field as a player or a coach, just to talk to Bishop every day). This is a championship caliber team, and young talent fits in more quickly than on a team that's perennially .500 or worse.

This is exactly what I think, and I'm regularly amazed that fans are so perplexed by moves McBeane make. They don't do haphazard. They don't do spur of the moment. They don't do wild-ass guess. They study and think and plan, then challenge everyone in the organization to execute. For example, I think it's pretty impressive how they've built an offensive line. Pretty much everyone here, including me, complained regularly about the oline five years ago. I was watching one of the Josh career-highlight videos, and over and over again on the backs of offensive linemen I saw names I didn't even remember. I think a very good argument can be made that the roster has improved every season, including the wide receiver roster this season. And if my Aiyuk pipedream becomes reality, there will be no question.

Well, I haven't watched film or studied him, and I wouldn't know what to make of it if I did watch film, but I've been optimistic about him, too, since the day the Bills took him. All of what you say is what I've thought, especially the stuff about his college pedigree. There's little question that guys with good experience in elite programs like Alabama and Georgia can play, and play early, in the NFL. It was true to a lesser extent during Clemson's run, too. On the other hand, as an abstract matter, no one thinks a fifth round rookie interior lineman to be a day one starter. If the only reason he fell to day three is that he has no position flexibility, well, then I'd say some GMs aren't thinking about their team well enough. Of course Beane, who needed an interior lineman, took a rotational DT in the third round instead of VPG, so he must have some questions about VPG, too. It continues to amaze me that with almost every pick Beane got a player who has a seriously good chance of playing more than token snaps in his rookie season.

This makes a lot of sense. I think the Bills are happy where they are right now, and they want to see how all the questions get answered. What questions? Will Shakir be more productive? Will Kincaid be more productive? Will Samuel be more productive? Will Coleman pay early dividends? Will MVS be at least as good as he has been over his career? Will Claypool resurrect himself? If enough of those questions get answered positively, the Bills won't need help. But if there aren't enough positive answers, Beane will be shopping. I've been one to suggest that there might be a post-June 1 trade with the 49ers, but one of the problems with that from the 49ers' point of view is they lose a talent for the entire season and they don't get anything in return until the 2025 draft. Also, they don't know yet how their rookies are fitting in. If it's a mid-season, trade deadline deal, that's better for them. If their rookie is productive, they know they can afford to lose one of their stars, and the 2025 draft is that much closer. I think there's going to be a lot of excitement in Highmark this fall. The first time Coleman catches the ball with running room, it's going to be fun. And Samuel too. I actually think that Coleman, Samuel, Shakir, MVS (or Claypool) will be better than Diggs, Davis, Shakir.

Yes, there are plenty of things that could change. The fumble into the end zone and out of bounds. The automatic first downs against the defense. But I think they've done some good things. They actually did a good job cleaning up the what's a catch mess. There are very few plays no where it feels like some team get hosed big-time on that rule. If I could do one thing, I'd have instant booth reviews on almost everything. I'd have an official in a press box with access to all the video and with a direct line into the headsets of officials on the field. In basketball, there are plenty of missed calls, but for most of the game, they are inconsequential. It's only two points, they tend to even out, etc. But in football, a missed called easily can be one of the most important plays in the game. A missed call easily can change the outcome of the game. College football already has shown that you can make such a system work. Instant booth reviews are the one thing that could be done to reduce the officials being the reason a game ended the way it did. If there were booth reviews, then the coaches' challenges would be less important. If they don't go to booth reviews of everything, then I've always thought the limits on coaches' challenges. Every time a coach is correct on a challenge, the coach should get another challenge. The idea of limiting the number of challenges was so that the game isn't unnecessarily prolonged by reviews. However, if a coach challenges a call and is correct, why shouldn't he get another? After all, all he's done is fix an official's mistake, and everyone should be in favor of that.