Beck Water

I don't take it as absolute fact, but I disagree with your premise - I think players and coaches generally speak the truth. Maybe not the "whole truth", but truth. What would be "in it" for Morse to say he's "blissfully ignorant" "doesn't know if it's in facility or outside the facility so doesn't think it's appropriate to speak" "my keys only open so many doors around here and that's not one of them" when he could just say "that's not something I'm going to discuss, but I'll be happy to answer any Football questions or questions you have about my off-season"?

So Ben Volin, reporter for the Boston Globe, stated that "a source close to the Bills locker room" (whatever that means) revealed Diggs problem with the Bills (this is all being discussed in the thread about Diggs, so I won't rehash). Now Volin is a serious, albeit not always correct in his info, reporter for the Boston Globe, so if he cites a "source close to the Bills locker room", I'm sure he has one. From his past history, he's not AP like @Delete This Account aka John Wawrow - he doesn't always have two independent sources close to the situation and he does sometimes get things wrong. Problem 1: apparently players IN the Bills locker room, like Mitch Morse, don't actually know the problem Problem 2: Buffalo reporters, who have cultivated sources IN the locker room, can't get much - the only tidbit was Tim Graham saying he was told "it doesn't involve Dorsey" (so how could it involve Diggs usage on the offense and not involve Dorsey? Sorry, Sorry didn't mean to re-hash) But here's the real problem: This morning, there are literally a dozen articles from SI, NBC, the NY Post, and numerous more "gossipy" outlets. Some reference Volin as the source. Some refer to him as "an insider". None of them have any independent source or verification This Is Fine No, it's not fine - it's how information from one unidentified source gets propegated and becomes "widely reported", without one iota of added credibility or verification. So what can you do, Gentle Reader? Pay attention to the source given for everything you read. And if something is being "widely reported" with the same slender source, please try to rate it's cred appropriately.

Basically correct, to my understanding; the question is whether it's a simple restructure or not (ie within the duration of the current contract, or adding void years). Diggs was within the duration of the current contract, so it apparently doesn't require player approval. Regarding bonuses: There are probably more taxes on a player bonus. Players get paid weekly during the season according to where they're playing. Home games for the Bills get NYS taxes. Away games get the tax rate of that state. So 1/18 of NJ and DC (about the same as NYS), MA (5%), Ohio (4%), Penn (3%), MO (4.95%), CA (12.3%) and Florida (0%) [and I have no idea how London gets handled]. But, the players financial advisers would say that any additional state taxes get off-set by the net present value of having an immediate lump sum to invest and start earning with - getting that lump sum ought to be a benefit.

This may have already been brought up, but evidently, if Beas intended it as praise to the Houston Texans QB, it didn't go over well with some Texans fans: https://www.sportskeeda.com/nfl/news-texans-fans-slam-former-cowboys-drawing-comparisons-c-j-stroud-dak-prescott-no-one-gives-f-ck-cole-beasley-thinks Some of the comments are ....salty

I like this picture: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fy8eNZYWYAE7fLX?format=jpg&name=medium About his "Diggs Deep" charitable foundation: https://www.unitedcharitable.org/2023/05/31/stefon-diggs-and-the-diggs-deep-foundation-making-a-difference-in-the-dc-area/ I didn't delve into it as to whether this is a legit foundation, or one where the administration costs are unreasonably high.

I think there is some Dorsey hate around here. Our offense did have a red zone problem for a rather prolonged stretch mid-season. There are other aspects of the offense which are in need of improvement: the run game and how it meshed (or didn't) with the pass game, the usage of Knox, the over-reliance on Allen in the run game. Some people view these as the natural 'teething pains' of a first year OC. Others view them as inexcusable because they believe a different, more experienced OC should have been brought in (ignoring the fact that if the new OC installed a different system with different terminology, it might have caused different teething pains - and never specifying WHO they believe this superior OC candidate would be)

There are many concerns. But wanting to move towards a more structured offense with defined WR routes is a Good Thing, IMO. And as for the reports that was Diggs issue which kept him out of Day 1 of mandatory minicamp, please consider: 1) Tim Graham said the one thing he could get out of his sources, was that the problem did NOT involve Dorsey 2) Bakari (Diggs agent) said to one of the insiders that Diggs had been meeting with Henry (WR coach), McDermott, and Beane 3) Allen said it was "not a football issue" but involved "teamwork" and "communication". It's pretty hard to construe "a more structured offense" as "not a football issue". Likewise Diggs wanting input into the offense.

Probably Josh Rosen for me. I was a "wrong Josh"er. And, I was wrong! I also thought drafting Sammy Watkins for EJ Manuel at QB was a reasonable move, like drafting AJ Green for Andy Dalton - Green was so good he kind of "made" Dalton as a QB. But, it turned out EJ Manuel was no Andy Dalton. BUT - I was totally correct that we should NEVER have traded Darryl Lamonica!!!!!!!!

That’s tremendous. Best wishes to your brother for an uncomplicated and full recovery

I want to say up front that I think while your source may be correct about Diggs feelings on freestyling and input, I DON'T think this was the issue under discussion. Tim Graham is a pretty good reporter, careful with his sources, and he went on the record saying that the only info he could get out of his sources was that Diggs issue did NOT involve Dorsey. It's pretty hard to conceptualize an issue around Diggs wanting more input into the direction of the offense, as NOT involving Dorsey. Ergo, one could conclude that the issue under discussion last Mon/Tues did NOT involve input into the offense or involvement in the offense. Then there's the Josh Allen comments that the issue was not football related, but involved "teamwork" and "communication". Again, it's hard to conceptualize an issue around the design of the offense and Diggs role in the offense, as NOT involving Dorsey or being football related. Third there's the report (sounded like it came from Bakari) that the meetings involved Beane, McDermott, and Henry. Whatever one thinks of McDermott, I don't think he's a weasel -and it would be weasel territory to hold discussions about the direction of the offense and a star player's involvement in it, without the man responsible for the offense in the room. That said: Something I and a number of others here have commented on is the number of times last season when it appeared that two WR wound up in the same place at the same time "that can't be designed like that". McKenzie commented on his Ty Dunne podcast that some of his routes where he was stacked with Gabe Davis were "choice routes" where they could each choose what route to run, as long as they didn't interfere with one another. Well combine that with option routes run by the slot against zone where the young WR may or may not have chosen the option the QB expected because he read the defense differently, and I think a lot of the time either they did interfere, or the choices became too predictable and DBs were able to react. (This is not intended to pick on McKenzie or Davis - it occured with other WR as well). Maybe all the choice and option routes worked well with ultra-experienced WR like Beasley and Sanders and Brown and Diggs, and could tolerate one lesser experienced receiver like Davis. But last year, with 3 less experienced WR in Davis and McKenzie and Shakir, it didn't work too well It seems to me like a reasonable decision to move to a more structured offense with all of the young guys. They should play faster if they know what route they're going to run, and their work is to figure out how to get open, -vs- if they're trying to figure out what route to run. I would think the offense could be more structured and still tolerate a limited amount of freestyling from Diggs, though. Diggs should get his voice heard. He's a vet, he knows ball. He should be able to watch film and bring play design ideas to Dorsey the way Beasley did to Daboll. But wants the ball more? Last season, Diggs had 154 targets on 567 passing attempts by Josh Allen. That's 27% of the passing attempts. When you consider that Diggs was only on the field for 77% of the offensive snaps (a 3 year low for him), Diggs usage rate was actually UP - he got the ball on 1 out of every 5.4 snaps he's on the field, an increase from 1 out of every 6 snaps last season. Justin Jefferson got the ball 1 out of every 6 snaps last 2 seasons. Davonte Adams, one out of every 5.2 snaps last 2 seasons in GB, 1 out of every 6 snaps last year in LV. Diggs current level of usage (or involvement) on a per-snap basis, is EXACTLY in line with other top WR. Now JJ and DA got more targets - but they're on the field more. Diggs seems to take himself off a fair bit. IF he wants more targets, stay on the field more. A lot of pretty smart people thought the offense was too dependent on Diggs as it was, and if we're going to get ROI on our 1st round TE and keep our other WR in the game, we need to spread the ball around a bit more, not less. IF it's true that this was the "ditch I'm willing to die in" issue for Diggs (and see above arguements against this, I agree with you. While your source may be correct about Diggs feelings, I don't think that was the issue being discussed here (unless the report about who was in the meeting was incorrect). So maybe there are more issues that need discussed 🤐

So I dunno about "source close to the #Bills locker room" talking to Ben Volin of the Boston Globe. Several people here have sources IN the Bills locker room, their sources don't know. Mitch Morse gave an interview (it's on BuffaloBills.com) where he described himself as "Blissfully Ignorant" of the details, and when pressed said he really didn't know, and the reporter didn't know, and when it came out then they'd both know. Jay Skurski of TBN, who is credentialed for as a member of the Bills press coverage and has many contacts on the team, said In the meantime, we have had all sorts of speculation here, from frustration with Dorsey to frustration with his new WR coach Travis Henry to frustration with Allen, with all sorts of fantastical reasons - all from someone who knows someone who knows Diggs etc etc. I think that if the real basis of the issue isn't widely enough known to be known to players, like Mitch Morse, or to guys with friendly or professional sources, the odds that Ben Volin really knows are probably not so good.

Same to you and all the TBD Dads and Fathers of TBDians! Q: What do Crabs do to celebrate Fathers Day? A: Nothing. They're shellfish! A2: Except for the Hermit Crabs. Their shellibration gets bigger every year!

I'm glad he's OK. Or relatively OK. "completely crushed T9" sounds potentially life altering. Has he movement in his legs?

Do you happen to have a link to this podcast? I ask because I'm very intrigued from your description. I see our defense as crafting individualized gameplans for opponents ("mixing it up scheme wise"), but when it comes to top opponents for some reason they take multiple tries to figure it out. Example: The Bills have played KC 6 times with McDermott as HC. The first, in 2017 vs. Alex Smith, was a win. The next two were bad losses, where the game was not as close as the 17-26 or 24-38 score would appear. Then the Bills brain trust figured some stuff out, and the next 3 games have been wins or very very close. Similar dynamic with the Ravens; the first 2 times the Bills played the Ravens under McDermott were a horrible loss (Josh Allen started at the half) and a 1-score loss. Then the Bills figured out how to better contain the Ravens offense, and the next 2 games were W. I'm pretty sure the next time we play the Bengals, the Bills defensive brain trust will have a better plan for them, but it concerns me that the pattern might repeat every time we encounter a different combination of coaching and personnel

Andy Reid says "hi". No, seriously - Andy Reid had that reputation as the great regular season coach who couldn't get it done in the big games. The years blur together, but after one of the Chiefs playoff losses, Tony Dungy banged the table on prime time TV and opined "The Chiefs may win a Superbowl, but they won't win it with Andy Reid as their HC". Speaking of which, Tony Dungy ought to know - he won a Superbowl in his 11th year as a HC. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you actually don't know enough details about all the Dungy and Reid losses in big games to be able to make that statement, but if you're challenged to "stand and deliver" on proving it, you'll turn about and say the person challenging you ought to prove that they did.

The Dolphins are an interesting case. They kept their DC (rare). They kept their GM. They made the playoffs. But, they did it with the same record that *failed* to make the playoffs the previous two seasons under Flores. It actually reminds me somewhat of the Bills first year under McDermott. I don't think it's atypical to see a similar or better record the first year with a new HC. The Dolphins saw a better record when they changed to Philbin from Sparano and Gase from Philbin. The question is, what then? One could argue, given the offensive and defensive talent they lined up and the FA/trade acquisitions, they expected to take a step. So we'll see, this season. They just changed DCs to a guy in his 60s with 19 years of DC experience.

It sounded like Harty was making some good plays. @Happydays did a great job summarizing a couple of Athletic articles which mentioned him specifically. Look upthread.

Did you know that's a brand of toilet paper? Literally Everyone who knows ball knows that a QB's most important qualities are football intelligence, leadership of his teammates, and decision making during the game. A QB who has those assets and "enough" physical skills can build them into a long career. See Cousins, Kirk; possibly Montana, Joe and Brady, Tom. A QB whose greatest assets are his physical talents but who doesn't "got it going on" when it comes to football intelligence, leadership, and decision making will usually flame out. So yeah, saying Josh is "the most physically talented" does kind of carry an implication that he doesn't "got it going on" in the mind game aspects.

No offense, Mate, but I just let go of conversing with you in another thread where you didn't seem willing or able to process or acknowledge any points I made, and trivialized the actual argument I was making (whether deliberately or thru misunderstanding, I don't know. I found it a somewhat frustrating interaction. So I'll have to politely decline to take up your challenge I do think, if you want to claim it's bad, you really ought to put forth some effort in objectively demonstrating that it's worse than the rest of the league, or worse than the top, say, 8 teams for the last 3 years. If you want to claim a concerning pattern, there ought to be some "skin in your game" for stating what you believe that pattern to be, and again, demonstrating that it's there vs. how other top teams are drafting.

What is that pattern? Keep in mind you can't look at a GM's drafting in the abstract and say "it's bad" It has to be viewed in context - the overall success rate league-wide for finding a guy who can play (not a stud superstar, just a quality NFL player) is something like 30-50% in the 1st and 2nd round, 20%-30% in the 3rd round and by the 4th and beyond something like 10%. You can confirm this if you go to a site like pro-football-reference, scroll back to a draft that's got enough data to decide like 2020 or earlier, and look at the AV. AV isn't perfect as an evaluation of a player's contributions, but it tracks pretty well.

I agree with the regression to the mean bit But I don't think there's increased job security for McDermott in having no DC. I believe the vast majority of the time, a new coach brings in his own OC, DC, and staff of assistants. It's pretty much standard and expected to be on a new coach's plate.

This I think is legit. The Bills evidently had some plays where they stacked Davis and McKenzie and they ran "double option" routes where they looked at the D and chose which route they were gonna run. Then they had other option routes in the offense. How to say this nicely? It didn't work, and it kept not working. I'm not sure who it was on, but they would typically end in the vicinity of each other (also seen with Shakir and other receivers) and I'm sure that is not what they were supposed to do. Sometimes someone with better football knowledge, like The QB school guy, or Kurt Warner, would diagram and explain which route he thought was wrong, and what should have been run. I was shocked the week before Minnesota when McKenzie was interviewed about Josh and said something to the effect Josh was coaching on the sideline, told him "I didn't realize you were running that route this way, can you run it like this instead?" "Ok, sure". because there really should have been communication between Dorsey, Josh, and the WR coach (who then communicates to the WR), if it's too hectic for Josh to communicate to the WR directly during or after practice. Anyway, the problem you call out continued all season and was never fixed as far as I can tell. Do you have a source for this stat, both for 2021 and 2022? Thanks, would love to see that!

You realize that's literal, not figurative, right? 1) Crowder on IR with broken leg 2) Hodgins lost to waivers when he was cut in a CB roster squeeze 3) Kumerow placed on IR for back surgery So, Math. The Bills have 6 WR on their roster: Stefon Diggs Gabe Davis Jamison Crowder Isaiah McKenzie Khalil Shakir Jake Kumerow plus, they have Isaiah Hodgins and Tanner Gentry on the Practice Squad who they have elevated periodically. Now they have 4 WR on their roster: Stefon Diggs Gabe Davis Isaiah McKenzie Khalil Shakir plus, they have Tanner Gentry on the Practice Squad, and when they elevated him it didn't look too good. They just needed bodies that weren't in the infirmary, and the trade deadline was past. So it was either grab someone off the sofa, or grab someone off another team's practice squad who needs to learn our offense and who may not "have it". Sofa it was. In hindsight, letting Hodgins go through waivers was a costly mistake on Beane's part.

It depends upon the language used, right? Let's look at something else Beasley just tweeted about Jaxon Smith-Njigba, so we divorce it of our Fandom: Smith-Njigba was the first of 4 WR drafted one after the other in this year's first round. Beasley could say "I thought Jaxon Smith-Njigba would be nice" or "I thought Jaxon Smith-Njigba had potential to be special". That has no implications about the other WR. But when he says "one of the very few..." the implications are pretty clear he thinks most of the WR in the 2023 draft are NOT gonna be nice.

That neither addresses or refutes the peculiar claim that the Bucs defense, not Brady, got them to the Superbowl.