Jrb1979

I'm of the opinion it's due to both. Yea they needed a game wrecker on defense to win but they also need elite talent on offense too.

Yeah they lost by 3 and the offense was clicking for the majority of the game. It was working til when they needed a big play at the end of the game for a first down. That is when you need a Chase type to make a play. Look at the Eagles, when they needed that big play they went to Barkley or Brown. It also takes playmakers on both sides of the ball to win. The Eagles had that. They had a dominant Dline but also elite talent on offense too.

I'm not against fixing the Dline and getting an elite talent but you need playmakers on both sides of the ball to win the Superbowl.

That's fair. I don't think you should spend every thing on an elite one but I also don't believe that just cause they had the number 1 offense last year it is good enough. My take is that as good as the offense was with the everyone eats thinking does work til it doesn't. I'm off the belief that had they had an elite pass catcher, a TE or WR they make the Superbowl this past season.

You do need a number 1 pass catcher. Almost every team that has won a Super Bowl either had a number 1 WR or a number 1 TE.

It's not a problem for winning in the regular season and it worked for most the playoffs. When you need a big play like they did at the end of the AFC championship game, everyone eats fails more than it succeeds.

The thing that many overlook and it was in the article I linked. Teams that didn't have a true number 1 WR had a dominant TE instead. Either way teams that won had either a TE or WR that was the go to guy

It could just be that's the highest level they will get too.

I agree players have to make plays. At the same time the regime needs to also get those type of players that make those plays.

While McDermott deserves a lot of respect for how he develops players and gets the most of them. He is a great coach for that. I personally not in a hurry to necessarily move on from him. I do think for the Bills to win a Super Bowl his philosophy of building a team has to change. IMO he's very old school in terms of roster construction. It's based more on culture and scheme fit than going after elite playmakers. It feels like they are very anti diva of any kind. Just look at the drafts, they prefer guys that will work hard with a high ceiling, than take a guy who may have a chip on his shoulder and will have an impact right away. IMO that needs to change to win a Super Bowl.

https://www.thefranchisetag.co.uk/articles/can-you-win-the-superbowl-without-a-wr1 Overall, the data shows that you don’t need to have a “WR1” to win a Superbowl. However, if you don’t have one you need to have an elite quarterback/tight end combo. What that tells me is you need at least one top offensive weapon to win. Very rare does an "everyone eats" offense wins a Super Bowl

3 of the last 5 Super Bowl champs other than KC all had that blue chip WR. Tampa, LA and Philly all spent big money on the WR position and won a Super Bowl.

A better example is McDuffie. He is better CB than Elam, don't think more playing time gets Elam to that level. I do agree that if Kincaid had he been TE1 would have had better numbers. I still not so sure he becomes an elite TE.

They may have played better. I don't see either one being that game breaker that La Porta or Sauce Gardiner has shown to be.

There is two sides to it. The king is great at developing early round picks and is probably better then most teams do. They tend to become good players. Which is great in keeping the team competitive year and year out. What they haven't been good at is finding that high end talent in the first rounds that other teams do. You need those playmakers to win a Super Bowl.

As some in the comments said, there isn't much correlation between top picks and wins. Not just start right a way but also make an impact. Less focus on team fit and culture. Take BPA.

Nobody denies he's done great things for this team. He also has his faults too. The whole front office has faults and that's what Monos was pointing out. Instead of talking about those, many dismiss it cause it was from a guy who was a failure.

In terms of starters and culture it's been a good draft. It still lacks, like most drafts in elite talent.

This past season it's been unstoppable but there is no guarantee it's going to continue to be that way. Teams have tape now and will work on stopping it. I'm not saying to ignore the defense but you need playmakers on both sides of the ball. They still need that dominant WR.

That's fair. I do agree. At the same time if they do all that and still don't at least make it to the Super Bowl, it's time to move on. I do understand where most of you are coming from. This is the best run this organization has ever been on, McDermott and Beane always have this team in contention. With some luck maybe they will win a Super Bowl.

I said nothing about drafting Josh as lucky. That was someone else.

Its both. I do agree with most of what he said and he made some really good points. I take it you didn't read it?

Would it be better if it was Marv Levy making the comments? Just cause he failed as a part of the front office doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. He made some really good points.

I don't hate on this regime. They have done good things in terms of culture and winning. I'm all for keeping him a few more seasons. I'm also of the belief they aren't good enough to win a Super Bowl. I feel they are great for rebuilding a team and making them a playoff team.

While those players were good, they really didn't have an impact like other teams drafted players did. Did anyone take time to read the write-up on the other teams?