The Red King

So...people are really fighting over which rumor reporter is more credible in this case? Well, this rumor is true because this guy...but no, your guy is a hack, so my guy's rumor must be true, not yours.

Danggit, was going to say the same thing. XD

I might be remembering wrong, but was NE's QB a serious power running threat?

Never said he was this big game-changer. Just saying if he can do what Josh can do, then defenses will be forced to respect that and deploy a defense that can defend against both, rather then focus strictly on Josh. It's like having a superstar defensive end paired with a sub-par end. The O-Line can double-team all day with no fear. Now, pair that same star with a good/great end and it becomes a problem. Yes, the star will be getting most of the attention, but the other end will need to be at least respected, and can go on a tear if not given enough attention.

Why not both? Seriously, it's nicer to have two options in that situation so the opposing defense can't just focus 11 players and 3 cheerleaders on Josh.

We needed a back that can pound it in from short range. We got one, and didn't burn a draft pick on him. Our O-Line still needs shoring up, we need a MLB and a WR2. We also could really use anything resembling a pass rush from someone who's initials are not VM. The more holes we fill now, the fewer we'll have in the draft and the more selective we can be with our picks. I like this signing.

Let me sum this up. OP maintained that any and all current negative feelings and evaluations are the direct result of the Cincy game and only the Cincy game. The replies here prove that as patently false. A lot of people here saw and spoke about the cracks in the foundation, and were blasted for pointing them out.

Beane is likely just patiently waiting for OBJ's other options to dry up so he can swoop in with a cheap prove-it deal.

Remember, some posters started pointing these out as early as the GB game. Those same posters got laughed and yelled at, with the familiar mantra of...well, we're 10-3, 11-3...and so on, as if having that record had to mean we were flawless. And the things those posters were pointing out as concerns were the exact same things Cincy used to wreck us. So no, in a number of cases people are not basing their own opinions on one game. They saw it coming and got shouted down for speaking up.

Give Mahomes the Buffalo "Red Carpet" O-line and then we can fairly compare him to Allen.

His hands weren't tied. He could have mentioned his top 3 and include his old QB. He chose not to. I think that's why some people are salty. It's not the "#3", it's the intentional omission.

Again, for the hundredth time...Frazier gets more flak because he's been around a lot longer and has a greater volume of work to hold against him. The Bengals game was far from his first playoff disaster. Nobody thinks the offense was fine, but it was helmed by a first year OC.

PSA for the day, yelling and insulting does not in any way make you right. We're all being calm, while you're going on like you pounded a Red Bull after dumping ten Pixie Sticks in. Try to keep it civil, please. That aside, most, if not all of us think there is nothing wrong with Lamar chasing the $$$. Given the Watson deal he's well within his right. I think we're looking at it wrong. There may well be collusion, but are they colluding against Jackson, or against contracts like Watson's? In other words were it another QB looking for the same contract, would this still be playing out the same way? I believe so. If Jackson were asking for a normal, reasonable contract, would he still be looking for work? Of course not. The owners are colluding against contracts like Watson's, not against Lamar.

Then how does it work? I mean, I can say "Your nonsense argument isn't how it works" and instantly invalidate your arguments just as much as you did mine. Sorry, rebuffing a point requires an actual counter-argument, not a simple "Nu-uh!" I'm not defending the owners. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the argument that since a single owner did something stupid, a precedent is somehow now set and owners are required to follow suit or it's "collusion". If 3-4 QBs got similar contracts, then yeah. That is an established pattern. This is not. So again, I challenge you to actually argue against my example instead of trying to handwave it away. I predict you won't, and try to cover your inability to do so with hostile and condecending language. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

By extension, if a team was stupid enough to give a QB 99% of its cap space, and had to fill the remaining roster with rookie salaries and vet minimums, would other teams then be required to do so because a precedent had been set? Of course not. The Watson deal is unique, and as such cannot constitute a pattern to collude against.

Injuries did not cause Frazier to be unable to make adjustments. We got lit up in the first Bengals game, yet he proudly stated he was stayng with the plan...and then got shredded twice more before Cincy took their foot off the gas.

It was the OC's first year. The DC, not so much. They looked terrible both sides of the ball. But it wasn't Frazier's first playoff failure.

Frazier stubbornly stuck to his plans. He showed no ability or desire to adapt. When the plan worked it resulted in elite play. 13-3. When the scheme was figured out or simply outplayed they got wrecked as he just refused to adjust. 13 seconds. Bengals game, when he got torched for almost two full drives and didn't change a thing for the playoff game. He's a great DC, who can gameplan well and get the most out of his talent. However, his critical fault is being unable to adjust if his scheme is overcome. In a playoff system where one loss eliminates you, we're going to get tripped up somewhere each time, be it a collapse like 13 seconds, or a beatdown like the Bengals game.

I worried about him playing through that injury, and thinking he maybe should have rested several games. That I'd be happier seeing them go in as a Wild Card with a healthy Allen then I would a top seed with an injured Allen.

Rams vs. Saints NFC Championship game would disagree with you.

Alright, I'll bite. What did they say?

28-24, Eagles

I will ask again, this time to anyone who thinks Frazier is a great coach. Look at only the playoff numbers from his tenure. Not regular season, playoffs. They are horrific. Not just one year. Multiple years. All of them. Are you okay with a DC that will do fantastically in the regular season only to underperform and flame out in the playofffs? It's like recording a painful football game, then rewatching it, hoping they win this time. And when they don't, you watch the recording again because this time you've got a good feeling about it and gosh darn it, they were so close they just gotta win this time! Frazier has made it crystal clear what kind of DC he is, and that's perfectly fine if you want to crush the regular season. Me? I'd like an actual shot at a Super Bowl title.

Gotten plenty off it, thank you. I'm glad you think anyone who's opinions differ from yours, individuals that think this team showed critical flaws that need addressing, are toxic, overreacting people. I almost empithised with you, until that last line. This is a forum. We are allowed to voice our opinions, even if they differ from yours. Some of us are sick of the drop-off from regular-season performance to playoff performance. Especially on defense. And we have a right to both feel and express that. Equally as much as you have the right to think this season died to circumstances both too numerous and serious to overcome. I may strongly disagree with that mindset, but I would never begrudge or backhand insult anyone having it.

So...to be clear...some of you are pointing to glorified Power Rankings as conclusive evidence the Bills are perfectly fine? Really?