JoshAllenHasBigHands

Nice

Alot of turnover on that DL. I wouldn't take it as a given that they perform just as well. They might, and I even think they will, but I am hesitant to be overly optimistic.

Long is a valuable piece though. There are guys much further down the roster that could have been cut instead of Long.

But why...

THAT is a very strong argument. I just hate hoping that vets will just "figure it out" again. It always feels like such a long shot.

Even in team defenses, cornerbacks are to at least some extent left out on an island. Even if they have help over the top, or a LB in a passing lane, they are still by themselves with their guy for most of the play. Levi is very slight, and he doesn't have the athletic ability to overcome it. He will do OK, but never better than OK. So, yeah, I'm not "worried" about it either. But you saw last year teams take advantage of Levi. It would have been nice to have someone better.

Norman and Gaines are just "guys." They aren't upgrades. I hope Levi can improve, but he is so slight. He will probably be the defense's weakness again this year. But, hey, every defense has its soft spots. That would be miles better than our run defense being terrible again.

He is pretty fair about the question. He points out that the position is a weakness relative to the Bills, but not necessarily a weakness in the sense that other teams are not marching out starting quality players at certain positions. Its just the weakest spot on a very good defense, which I think is true. His point is the Bills did not invest in the position like many thought they would, considering its about the only "hole" on the defense.

While you are right, it's hard not to get the sense that Lamar is a one trick pony that will soon be figured out by the NFL.

He has a pretty involved injury history. Even when he played, he was playing hurt. I wonder if that is part of why the Jets cut him. The chatter is that it was a cap move, but you never really know what is happening behind the scenes. I wouldn't take the physical as a given with this move.

Joe Marino dedicated an entire episode of Locked On Bills to Ford's future at RT. It is reallllly good. The thesis is pretty much that the whole "slow feet" argument is a myth, and that for dozens of other reasons there was never a high likelihood Ford would do well at RT his rookie season. Important points include that Ford played in the Big Ten against below-average DL talent, that he consistently played in the two point stance, and that he relied on his superior athletic ability to win at the point of attack. He concluded that Ford was always a project RT, which he had been saying since he scouted Ford in the draft. All this is to say that Ford was never going to be a great rookie. However, he has the size and strength to become a dominant RT. Now, that being said, he needs to develop. If he doesn't, well, then it wasn't mean to be. But, his rookie year is not an indicator, in any respect, of what he can become at RT.

Who else was showing interest? I'm not on twitter anymore, so I'm missing out on alot of these small updates.

I'm getting to a point where I'm rooting for Ford to do well at RT so this stupid belief that "rookies that don't excel their rookie year never get better" will go away forever. You know who was not good their rookie year and got much better in year 2? Besides 90% of NFL players, the one that jumps to the top of my mind is Tremaine Edmunds. He was a train wreck as a rookie. Last year he climbed into the top 10 (top 15 depending on who you ask), and now he is considered one of the most promising up and coming LBs in the NFL.

Well, yeah. That's the point. I wonder if this being a big year inspired players not to opt out.

Interesting comment about this being a big year for the Bills. Obviously you take some of this stuff with a grain of salt, but if the high expectations for the Bills this year was one of the reasons he didn't opt out, you have to wonder if the Pats having such low expectations is part of the reason they have so many opt outs. There are reasons this might not be true, especially when you consider that many of the teams with the lowest expectations didn't have opt outs; however, I think the Pat's situation is uniquely different.

It'd be nice if they at least estimated the costs. Revenue is nice, and the figures look huge, but, by itself, revenue is a meaningless number. It must be a massive undertaking to put those games on - staffing, insurance, food and supplies.

Dude...come on

So your gripe is my hyperbole? Ill run my posts by you before I submit them from now on to make sure you approve of the tone and level of exaggeration.

What did I say that is inconsistent with what I just said?

Targets was like the whole reason Diggs got so upset with the Vikings. It is the literal reason he is now on the Bills. Last year he got about 100. I am super surprised that saying he didnt get enough targets is somehow an objectionable take.

Yes, ignoring the impending catastrophe, and imagining what could be, is fun. Choosing not to play that game, but also insisting on adding your negative two cents, is not fun. It’s a real “Karen” move.

Mr WEO is the one you want to be disagreeing with

Read the rest if the thread...

Sure, man. Im glad you are happy with the idea of giving Diggs 100 targets. I, and I would wager most, think that is obviously ridiculous. But you stay edgy, man.

Its an inherent contradiction. It you agree that he is here to be a #1, but that before he was a #2, then by definition he was not getting a sufficient number of targets. Easy and obvious.