Beck Water

So there were several parts of the interview I found interesting. One was what Beane had to say about the change-over from Dorsey to Brady. Beane RAVED about what a great communicator Brady is. Said maybe you don't notice it's missing until you have it. Also said when someone goes out, Brady was like "OK, who we got, we're gonna do this we're goinna do that" The pretty clear implication was that Dorsey was missing communication and energy with the players, and that Dorsey perhaps did show let down when a player went out I don't think he left much between the lines, to be honest with you. Couple other parts I found interesting. In discussing WR, Beane mentioned Shakir, he mentioned Samuel, he mentioned Coleman, and he mentioned MVS (a lot). Chase Claypool as far as I can tell, went unmentioned. So did Shorter and the PS guys. This leaves me feeling Claypool better "show up and show out" or he'll be out.

Correct. They were in Johnson County, Kansas. Marijuana and THC https://www.sportskeeda.com/nfl/news-why-chiefs-wanya-morris-chuck-godrick-arrested-everything-know-nfl-duo-s-transgressions

FIFY Edit: actually, it would appear his specific message was not on-brand for all of his audience. The Benedictine Sisters who co-founded the college objected. https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/melinda-henneberger/article288540845.html

That's a really fair question, Bill, and I think it deserves a thoughtful answer so I'll try. I'll also try to be uncharacteristically brief about it. In part, it comes down to the so-called "paradox of tolerance", in which people who speak out against prejudiced, intolerant speech have it pointed out that they are being themselves intolerant of another person's opinions. Why not just "live and let live", why should you care? To me, one of the best responses is Yonatan Zunger's essay "Tolerance is not a Moral Precept", in which he frames tolerance not as a moral imperative, but as a "peace treaty" which allows different people of different views to live side by side and not be at each other's throats with the belief "that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business." (I think that's what you're expressing above). I recommend it as reading; it will come up with a demand to join Medium, just click on the X and it will let you read. Zunger points out that when viewed as a peace treaty, the limits of tolerance become obvious: a peace treaty applies only to those who are willing to abide by its terms; it is not "a suicide pact" where we are obliged to tolerate people's stated opposition to our lives and safety, or our neighbors’ lives and safety. (It's fundamentally the same principle as "your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose") So if someone says "I wouldn't want to be friends with a gay person because I don't think it's right" (or "I don't think it's moral to sleep around and drink and I don't associate with people who do"), they may be living by the terms of the treaty. They're talking about how they choose to live their life, whatever. If they refer to an LGBTQ person as an "abomination", they're using dehumanizing language - abominations aren't people with the same fundamentally human feelings and experiences we all share, right?. IMHO not only a gay person, but all people should care then, because historically, dehumanizing language has accompanied systematic discrimination and even systematic atrocities. Where Butker went, referencing "dangerous gender ideologies" and "the deadly sin sort of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it", he is verging close to dehumanizing language. If a person lives their life with "dangerous gender ideologies" or "deadly sin", are they a person with the same human feelings and experiences and right to live their lives and talk about their experiences? If something is dangerous and deadly and I live by it, do I have the same rights to live in our communities peacefully? I dunno, but that's why my ears pricked up. That's why I care, and feel concern for things like this being said. If no one speaks up, it can become normalized. And if it becomes normalized, then historically, too often, it doesn't end with words but with actual impacts on people's lives and safety. As far as Butker's comments about the true vocation of wives and mothers towards which ladies should feel most excitement: the same principle applies. Is this an indication that the speaker is expressing his personal beliefs, which I should tolerate? If I were one of the young women who just worked my ass off for 8 semesters to earn a degree only to hear from my college's chosen and endorsed commencement speaker that my true vocation is as a wife and mother, I would feel PISSED because it would seem to be devaluing my efforts. But whatever. My daughter, and likely your daughters, have been able to pursue whatever career or vocation and hobbies they freely chose. They have been able to receive whatever health care they choose, including reproductive health care. The real concern I feel is, are these beliefs part of an organized attempt to impose a set of restrictions on me, my daughter, your daughters? And there are documented cases where they are. Brief as I can be, Peace Out!

It doesn't surprise me, but it ..... disappoints me? I probably have an idealized or romanticized idea about the acceptance and tolerance levels of an NFL locker room. Say more, please? Presumably because they knew he would say things they wanted their student body to hear, based on last year's speech at Georgia Tech. Why Georgia Tech would pick a football kicker is a better question.

I initially read that quote as "start her vacation as a wife and a mother" I know very well that raising children and keeping a home is challenging work, not a vacation. But when your husband makes millions of dollars and you can afford a home, as much help with housework, yardwork, cooking, and laundry as you choose, as much childcare as you choose - life is a little different than if you're trying to make ends meet on one income and worrying about what you'll do after your old, but totally functional car was totaled by a drunk driver and the insurance payout is much less than the cost to buy a comparably maintained and reliable car. Or how you'll afford a new furnace if yours can't be repaired again this winter.

I think regarding MVS as "Davis at a fraction of the price" is highly optimistic, but I'm having trouble articulating why. Perhaps because looked at from a season to season (although not game to game) perspective, Davis was a rather consistent performer and improved his scored drops. He could be counted on for 7 TD and 34-35 1D the last 2 seasons. MVS seems as though his performance as a receiver is more inconsistent even though he doesn't have a lot of reported injuries. In 2020, he had a very good season that netted him a substantial FA contract from the Chiefs, where he didn't return value. In 2022 he approached the same receiving yards and 1D as 2020, but in 2023 his targets substantially declined - like, in half - and it's not clear why. His snaps only fell about 10%, and the Chiefs WR corps wasn't exactly loaded last season.

I thought I had read that Samuel lined up 72% from the slot or something like that, with Brady in CAR? This is what I could find: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5343167/2024/03/14/buffalo-bills-curtis-samuel-free-agency/ concludes and I can't find anything indicating Samuel was used as an outside receiver with Brady in Carolina, much less 70% of the time. Would appreciate learning your source.

It truly surprises me that the % of man coverage the Bills saw in 2020 and 2021 was higher. I would have thought that in 2020 and 2021 we had a group of receivers that DCs would decline to man up against. Shows what I know. Do you know if there are stats about success against man vs zone each year?

I think you make a number of valid points here. Agree on 1 thru 4 and the sum. The elephant in the corner of the room is, that we were missing that "true #1" which Diggs once was, in the 2nd half of the season and playoffs. So the fact that Shakir can do a lot of the things Diggs offered down the stretch last season, doesn't mitigate that gap, because it was a gap down the stretch Add in our earlier decision to let Gabe Davis walk, means we now have a gap followed by a rookie who seems to be one of Beane's "high ceiling/low floor" specials who often take a while to find their feet in the NFL. The above points are the reason why some of us are questioning the "enough on offense to mitigate" premise.

Tua >> Garappolo Your point about the quality of talent the same coaches had to work with leading to better results with the scheme still valid

Why are avocado and olive oil both named for the source of the oil, but baby oil named for the intended recipient? Why do we drive on parkways and park on driveways? "the English language is a wriggling thing, building on the words before it in unpredictable directions."

No, the obvious point is that most teams carry 6 WR on the active roster. If you lose two of those WR to injury (the second past the trade deadline), you have to make additions to the receiving room from somewhere. If your PS WR are too good, they're going to be poached or claimed if they're elevated and waived (as happened with Hopkins). If you'd like to make the argument that 2 PS guys on our or any other roster were gonna contribute more than Brown and Beasley off the coach, Have At It.

We're not debating the factual arm length of alligators, which is indeed, as you note, short. We're pointing out the difference in the common meaning of the term "he alligator armed it"

Valid point IMHO. It's a counter point that Sanders, even towards the end of his career, was a legit receiver and that two of the key pieces (Deebo and Kittle) are the same; Jennings vs Bourne is probably a "push" or advantage Bourne. CMC is a damned Unicorn though, and elevated the talent that offense the moment he walked on the field Dare one say, though, Brock Purdy is a better passer than Jimmy Garappolo - as accurate and careful with the ball, more willing to take the deeper shot and push the ball downfield, as shown by almost 2 yards higher AY/A. In fact wasn't that the "word" that developed on Garappolo, that if you choked off the short stuff he wouldn't take the deep shots so you could stifle his passing game? I bring that up for the benefit of those who think the Bills can force opposing defenses to defend the entire field without a reasonable vertical threat at WR

With respect, @GunnerBill, "Alligator Arms" isn't the usual usage to mean short arms - it's usually used to mean a guy with a low catch % or bad hands. T-rex arms is more common to describe Shakir's arm length. To his credit, he worked very hard in the off-season to improve his catch % and was impressively surehanded last season.

I have read that argument and have read that argument and have read that argument. Franchise tag values and number of players at that position drafted in the early rounds do not concur. I like that other guy better who told me I was wrong to consider that, and 2019 WR with Brown and Beasley would be more comparable (though even there, that was a WR corps that fell way short and left Allen targeting Duke Williams and Pat DiMarco in the playoffs)

No argument at all on the Gross. Impressed by the Mike Williams call-out. I would not have picked that up since his contribution was 142 yds in 2014. I do sense a bit of a "moving bar" since your initial metric was >1000 yd season, which neither Williams or Matthews had. If we're now looking at 900 yd seasons, a couple of guys we have now came close to that, which along with the Mike Williams ROI, may just illustrate the point that "past performance is indeed no guarantee of future results" (Claypool etc) You're right about Benjamin, but IIRC he tore his meniscus during his 2nd game post-trade (the Peterman game against the Chargers). I don't think you addressed my question though: Would you like to argue that the 2018 WR corps was (at least on paper) better than what we have now?

I mean, what Dolphins activities have there been as yet? At this point, it's normally a couple weeks of Phase I OTAs, and rookie minicamp (veterans not invited) Some Holdout Not only that, but "Phase I OTAs" are workouts with S&C coaches and (I think) classroom work Though I think QBs are allowed to throw to receivers now after teams complained the Chiefs were doing an end-around by holding "virtual phase I OTAs" while Mahomes threw to his receivers outside the facilities.

I agree with you that there were better cap (and talent-building) strategies. I think it was clear that Diggs relationship with Allen was bad, and had been bad for some time - certainly by the end of the 2022 season. But usually, when guys want to win and recognize talent, they suck it up and figure out how to work together professionally. I don't know - it may have been a combination of things - declining abilities by objective metrics like GPS tracking of speed and separation; crappy relationship with the QB which didn't allow a "mind meld" that could compensate; organizational headaches - all leading to a decision to sell as high as they could and eat up the cap hit this season, while coping with a huge talent deficit at WR. I think I agree with your fundamental point, but suggest looking at it as "QB plus handful of pricey guys". Usually that's the QB, a DB, an OT, a DLman, and a receiver. Taking a peak around the league, on the Ravens we see 6 players who are nomming up >5% of the cap: Jackson, CB, FS, LT, TE, ILB, with DE Madubuike just below it at 4.31%. Chiefs: Mahomes, G, RT, TE, SS w DE Omenihu just behind them at 4.3%. Dallas: Prescott, DE Lawrence, WR, G, CB with Michael Gallup (5.4% of the cap) on the books as a post-June 1 cut and T just behind at 4.3%. Rams: Stafford, Cooper Kupp, DT Aaron Donald coming off the books post June 1, RT and G with a 2nd G just under at 4.96%. So the Bills, starting the off-season with Allen, Diggs (was about 10%, now 12% dead), Tre White (6.4%), and Von Miller over 5% then with Matt Milano 4.87% and Dion Dawkins 4.5%, didn't have an unusual cap allocation. The problem really wasn't the cap allocation, it was ROI from 3 of the 6 players at the top of the allocation. Diggs at the end of 2023 and in the 2022 and 2023 playoffs, did not provide good ROI. Tre, missing 2 of the last 3 seasons due to injury, ditto. Von Miller, missing effectively half of 2 seasons and playing at a "JAG" level the rest of last season, ditto ditto. Tre' is still young enough by CB standards to have been able to contribute barring repeat injury. Diggs, it wasn't unreasonable to expect good ROI through at least this next season - he signed a 4 year extension at age 28, Miller was the big swing-and-miss by Beane. When you look at the top-paid Edge players, Miller's age at signing sticks out - at least 3 years older than the next closest guy. Beane took a risk offering him that long of a contract with that much guaranteed, and it didn't pay off. Edit: to point out that Miller is also the only FA signing in the Bills top-cap collection. Everyone else was either developed here, or acquired by trade on a moderate contract (Diggs) and extended based on performance on the Bills team.

This is true. On the other hand, some of the 1000+ yd receivers the Bills have had on the roster were arguably worse than what we have now. For example, I listed the Bills 2018 receiving corps in another post. The 1000+ receiver we had, was Kelvin Benjamin. Would you like to make an argument that the 2018 WR corps was (at least on paper) better than what we have now? Yeah, he had a 1000+ yds as a rookie and >900 the next year he played (3rd league year), but his 2017 production was rather puny. Just out of curiousity, not disbelieving you but who was that 1000+ yd in the NFL WR we started 2014 with? Or started 2017 with, for that matter?

@oldmanfan what you say may very well be true - it may also be true of the organization overall. We hear various references from guys who have shown themselves to have accurate inside info or connections to people who do, to Diggs pulling various 'stunts' that 'hurt the team' or saying that Diggs and McDermott don't get along or "Diggs is definitely a problem". I thought it was notable that Diggs "Goodbye" instagram post got very few responses from Bills players - I think Dawkins "until next time" which included a pic of him side-eye'ing Diggs, was the only one. Then there was Allen's carefully crafted response in his OTA presser referring to Diggs as "his brother" followed by a Bills Social Media tiktok of the guys arriving for OTAs featuring the unseen cameraman calling Shakir "Brother" to which Shakir gets in his face and says "Don't Call Me That Again" then Dion turns back from the door and goes after the cameraman for saying "Goodbye, Brother". I took that as distancing themselves emphatically from the kind of "brotherhood" Diggs and Josh had at the end. In contrast, there are people with some connections like Joe Buscaglia who say Diggs is a "misunderstood dude", and that he's very emotionally intelligent and thoughtful and self-aware (how that computes along with Diggs in-game and post-game actions, I don't know) The main point is, trading Diggs was NOT a move that had to be made to release us from "cap trouble" The secondary point is - there are rumors about friction in locker rooms all the time and guys not getting along, but players don't usually get slung out the door for it at the expense of cap space and a deep performance hit to the WR room, unless they break team rules or otherwise behave unprofessionally (slacking on the field). Superficially in terms of numbers, the sensible roster building course would be to draft a guy they could bring on at whatever rate he needs while Diggs is still here for a year, then part ways. So I would tend to believe there may have been actual performance reasons which might, added to "bad locker room chemistry", lead to a premature parting of the ways. For example, the Bills have cold hard facts about Diggs performance in practice and games from GPS tracking. They might know his performance in the 2nd half was hampered by a nagging injury. Perhaps their medical staff recommended a procedure like a back or oblique muscle repair, which Diggs got additional opinions about and decided against, whereupon the Bills decided to swallow their cap hit medicine this year and move on because they believed the juice he brought wasn't gonna be worth the squeeze, by November.

mods, please move to OTW (or annihilate) if considered more appropriate For those who missed it, Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker was invited to give the commencement address at Catholic Benedictine College in Atchinson, KS. Here's the transcript: https://www.ncregister.com/news/harrison-butker-speech-at-benedictine He's entitled to his views, although he seems to have crafted it on the "if I haven't offended you yet, just wait a minute" principle. https://apnews.com/article/kansas-city-chiefs-harrison-butker-e00f6ee45955c99ef1e809ec447239e0 The NFL has now disavowed his comments https://wapo.st/4dIi9MK (gift article, should work) "The NFL said Thursday that it disagrees with the views expressed by Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker during a commencement address last weekend, calling itself “steadfast” in its commitment to inclusion." “Harrison Butker gave a speech in his personal capacity,” Jonathan Beane, the NFL’s chief diversity and inclusion officer, said in a written statement provided to The Washington Post and other media outlets. “His views are not those of the NFL as an organization. The NFL is steadfast in our commitment to inclusion, which only makes our league stronger.” Personally, when you're addressing an audience of young women who just worked hard to earn a degree, I think the minimum the commencement speaker could do is to respect that effort. "Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world" - how disparaging of their efforts and hard work! All I can say is I hope his kicks next season follow his views, and go Wide Right.

Well put. @HappyDays, where did you find the stats about man vs zone coverage %? I don't disbelieve it at all - in fact I thought I heard it elsewhere, Cover1 maybe. And it was a comment I found myself making while watching games, 'they can't get open vs. man'. But I'd love to know how it compares to 2022 and 2021. In 2020 and 2021, I would believe the Bills may have faced one of the lower percentages of man coverage, because we had a lot of guys who could get open against man - in addition to Diggs, we had Brown, Sanders, Beasley, McKenzie I do think we usually had someone open, but it was often a check-down guy who might end up short of the sticks, and Josh still has his allergy to taking the checkdown quickly when that option can lead to good YAC. I also do think that clever scheming could have gotten WR open vs man more often. Dorsey seemed to like plays which combined both zone- and man-beater elements, which meant there might be only 1 or 2 options against man. I think that's why we did some better under Brady, and to me, "what will Brady's offense look like?" is one of the key unanswered questions for the upcoming season. But even with great scheme, it still helps to have someone stretching the field vertically.