Richard Noggin

Your avatar speaks to me.

Isn't Samuel more of a smallish and quick man-cover corner who can play the slot? Not really a McD scheme fit, to my understanding.

Fair. The Chiefs offensive skill position depth chart is probably better, or at least more explosive. But one could still argue, as Zerovoltz and others have, that while Mahomes has these matchup nightmares to work with at the offensive skill positions, his offensive line has fielded too many backups and JAGs. So maybe the question of who's receiving more or less "help" on the field, with respect to offensive talent, isn't so black-and-white. Then again, I believe Andy Reid is a MUCH better offensive coordinator than Brian Daboll. That's probably obvious, and that definitely "helps" Mahomes.

Brady's entire approach to playing QB, at least early in his career (and probably again now late in his career) runs completely counter to these younger, more physically gifted, transcendently talented, aggressive guys. Aside from a midcareer run with an HOF receiver, he always HAD to master the details and take what the defense gave him in a mostly boring, often sackless, efficient way. These new hotshot QBs with their athleticism, toughness, creativity, and nearly limitless arm talent, have to gradually reprogram themselves to play more within the limits of each play. That's historically proven to be difficult for most QBs to do consistently. I think both Allen and Mahomes lost in the playoffs due to a hard-wired reluctance or even slight delay in deciding to play efficient small ball. Probably also has something to do with coaching: offensive gameplans and passing concepts and progressions tailored to their strengths and all that. They might have to learn to temper their approaches more. To pick their spots. To preserve their talents at times.

Easy, tiger. Bills Mafia appreciates your tenacity, but you might be guilty of overreacting here. Mahomes is awesome. Allen is awesome. Along with a few other young guns, these guys are evolving the QB position to some extent. But in the playoffs they both ran into opposing defenses they could not overcome. And interestingly, they showed some very similar flaws in those games, perhaps due to being schemed against very similarly. Because they're similar players. But Mahomes has been demonstrably better in his three years than Allen has been in his. Maybe in 2021 Allen makes yet another leap and surpasses Mahomes. There are some factors lining up in his favor (Mahomes's health, for one). So relax. Allen is awesome. But he's not the league MVP yet.

I do not agree with the bolded, although I do agree with what follows. The NFL is so incredibly variable, with possible permutations for the outcomes of each season, for each week, each game, each play, each practice, player, coach, ref, etc., in a kind of fractalized infinite regress of variables. So to maximize the potential for consistent and sustained success, it's best not to focus on countering a specific opponent in the short term who will inevitably change profoundly over a long enough timeline, and possibly could be very different next season. It's better to simply improve in whatever specific, achievable ways are possible each day, each week, each season, etc. Continue to strive to become the best version of the Buffalo Bills, all the time. Now, the obstinate outlier in all this variance is, of course, the franchise QB. They tend to transcend. They tend to sustain. To carry over. So there is room for some tailoring of the process to account for what's likely to be a long term, consistent barrier: Patrick Mahomes. The Chiefs overall will change considerably in both the short and long term. That opponent is not a static entity. But I'll admit it's likely that Mahomes and his talents, traits, tendencies, etc. will stick around. One never knows, though, now does one now does one now does one. (Shoutout to my favorite author, DFW.)

That's the impression one gets. The point is not wrong, of course. Just maybe...stale.

You've made this point at least a...few times.

I can explain that I was wrong, apparently, in thinking that player retirement automatically results in cap relief for that player's team. If Star retires this off-season, for example, then the Bills end up without his services AND a big dead cap hit that they can't get out of (until of course we consider whatever the eff Brees and the Saints just did). For more specifics you'd have to watch the podcast. Thompsett is pretty active in the chat during the broadcast, brings some serious cap smarts, and lets me know I'm wrong, much to the delight of all of us conversing.

With respect to this very myth about retirement and salary cap implications: Cover-1's Greg Thompsett set me straight last night via chat during their streamed salary cap podcast. I incorrectly commented that an unexpected Star Lotulelei retirement (a minor/mostly unfounded concern that nonetheless did come up and wasn't laughed off) would, on the bright side, provide cap relief for the Bills. Turns out that is not the case. Retirements can and do sometimes create sudden depth chart holes AND salary cap dead weight. Come to think of it, for example, didn't Eric Wood's sudden retirement trigger some poopy cap implications?

The douche in Tampa Bay USED TO have the best functional pocket mobility I'd ever seen. That guy, despite being a gangly mess, could sidestep a single rusher or step up into a lane and then deliver a strike with startling efficiency. He was elusive within the structure of the pocket.

I'm not sure you know what that word (fact) means. But I kind of agree with you.

I don't disagree with the points you're making here. But it still stands that the Lions thinking is pretty clear with respect to trade compensation and a QB the GM might actually like. Both teams get to start over with new QBs whom they apparently want. And the Lions get a lot of draft capital.

Their new GM helped to draft Goff in LA. It is possible that he actually likes Goff as a QB, at least in the short term. So the TWO 1st rounders plus a QB he likes probably made it an easy choice for the Detroit GM. The contract is whatever. They were already paying a QB, so now they're paying a different, younger guy, who they ostensibly like, and they have future firsts to build their roster. You don't have to agree with the assessment of Goff to understand the thinking behind the move.

Just gotta keep him from being isolated on big, physical receivers too often. That's where he gets picked on. In general, he's an effective corner in McFrazier's scheme.

I will root against Tom Brady in this game with a fervor approaching my rooting for the Bills. I cannot abide by another 'ship for him. I just can't. Eff that guy.

Why would you react like this? He wasn't complaining. He was EXplaining.

"Most of them (coaches) are egotistical small dick heroes." lol

Dad, is that you?

There is no "analytics" in the OP.

That's what she said.

Love the comparison. And guess what position Phil Hansen played (I'm sure you know)? That's right: 3-4 DE. I'd like to see Epenesa gradually get his weight up closer to his college days, and lined up right over the OT more often. More of a 4-3 Over alignment, I think? Or, what I really prefer, is for the Bills to say EFF dogma, and be much more multiple with their alignments. I think they've got athletes who don't precisely fit the mold of McD's preferred scheme, but might be successful in different roles (Edmunds and Epenesa mostly). Get creative.

That's reasonable and FAR more likely. Because if I'm Culley I'm asking about the situation directly.

Wait, WHAT? I'm not seeing a lot of free passes being issued to Cody Ford or Tremaine Edmunds. I'm seeing steady criticism of varying severity. (I left out Oliver because most people seem to understand that he's already an effective pro, albeit conspicuously underperforming on the stat sheet most games. And that's some of the issue here, a lack of quantifiable, impact plays.) 3-4 OLB at his current weight. 3-4 DE at his college weight. Kind of a misfit in a 4-3, so far. No matter what, Epenesa will never be "small" by NFL standards. He's long and strong at any weight.

Culley's comments indicate to me that he interviewed for the job to work with Watson (among other factors), and that upon accepting the job "knew" (past tense) that Watson would be the QB. That actually seems, to me, to highlight the dishonesty of Houston management/ownership. They didn't even mention to him that their franchise player had requested a trade something like a week or two (or three) prior? Someone isn't being forthright, anyways. And according to Watson, there is a history of this with McNair and Easterby. I'm sure almost everyone of any significance employed in the NFL is hearing this stuff through agents before we are, so I'm not casting Culley as some innocent patsy here. Just trying to piece together a reasonable take. The sudden leak by the team of Watson's trade request was to prevent the newly hired coach from being blamed, right? That's the way I'm reading it.