PBF81

LOL You seem to have plenty of time for your BS tho. Just out of curiosity, how many targets do you think that our other receivers deserve every game for a better offense? I'd love to hear your take on that.

You said that "McD was a LOT better than Marrone." That's what I was responding to. You're the one that put words in my mouth buy insinuating that I said that Marrone was a better coach. I never said that at all, ever. They're different to be sure. McD more defensive based, Marrone more offensive based. Another fact, Marrone's track record as an OC on average was notably better than McD's track record on average as a DC prior to both coming to Buffalo. So feel free to say it now then. Put into print that the reason why this team has won the division and made the playoffs is because of Allen's play first and foremost by a long shot. Maybe you have said as much and I've simply missed it. I don't read every thread here. But I'd like to see it myself. It seems to me that you're avoiding doing just that. Your assertion and accusation is ridiculous. If you don't think I'm interested in honest conversation, then tell me, specifically, which of what I wrote above is dishonest. What I'm not interested in is sustaining opinions as facts. It's clear that most of the latter part of what I wrote is nothing other than verifiable facts. It seems to me that it's those that you don't want to deal with in a conversational sense. That's on you. What you don't like and are avoiding is that they don't support, not even close, your position. So you take the angle above. Let's at least be honest with one another in your quest for "honest discussion." Otherwise, I'm here, unemotional, and happy to engage. Keep me posted on that Gilliam video. It's the same there. You made the claim that Gilliam "makes impact plays" often. You specifically cited and called out the two KC games in which you unequivocally stated that Gilliam was responsible for many impact plays in both of those games. I went through the highlights of one, looked at the vast majority of our yards in big plays and all of the TD scoring plays. Apart from the fact that Gilliam was rarely on the field for any of the scoring plays, two or three others if I recall correctly, but that he didn't make a single impact on any of them. So the evidence you presented, directly, in support of that claim is clearly false, at least for one of the two games. I'd guess, based on common sense and reason, that if I went through the second game it wouldn't be much different. I'm not putting anything in your mouth, rather I'm taking what comes out of it, trying to validate it, and coming up short. I'm offering you the opportunity to clarify, using hard verifiable facts, not simply saying it. Seems as if your defense of McD being "a LOT better than Marrone" is built on the same type of evidence. You were also one of those that Klein would make the team too, because he was good, right. BTW, and I doubt you'll disagree, but Kirksey is not a whole lot different than Klein. Just sayin'. At the end of the day I'm not the one not supporting my position with ample factual information in these two particular cases.

The inconsistency of your posts is telling. Emotions out of control. LOL Whatever boss! You do you.

I thought it was pretty clear. Here's a clue, look for the name "Kincaid," you should see the answer to your question.

I'm not looking forward to seeing Cook & Hall run UTM all game with Bernard at MLB and DBs behind him. Unless McD has a solution for that I can see them rushing for close to 200 yards. With Rodgers at QB I'm not sure we'd win that game then. Cook ran for 120 or so against us last season. Sure, one big run, but if he breaks through the line often I'm sure he'll break a few long runs. They roughed Allen up pretty good last season, he hurt his elbow in the second Jets game. This is going to be a huge test for Torrence going up against Williams. It's a lot to ask in his first outing.

Boy, someone's testy this evening. LOL Hence why I said OL play and our short passing game, including Harty & Kincaid will be key. It's not played in the past, but if Dorsey doesn't change things up, why would you expect a different outcome? Simply because we have some new players isn't going to do it all by itself. You just want to argue, sheesh! Forget I said anything then. Yikes!!

Did he finish the season at 330? If so, how TF does someone gain 40 lbs. in a few months like that. Dang! He seems like a consummate professional however, I'm sure he knows what needs to be done. Not sure gaining that much weight and then trying to lose it quickly weeks later is the smart route, but he seems like the kind of person that when he puts his mind to it he'll get it done.

Then it's not for you. "Economy of words" is fine for the typical 250 word nonsense piece designed for the person with the attention span of a hungry animal. It's not for everyone, in the same way that crafting arguments that are supposed to be taken seriously in two sentences aren't. Some people prefer substance. Some don't. To each his own. No sense in commenting if it's not your cup of tea though, right? I mean what's the point? Just to vent your emotional disposition?

East there Chief! LOL Seriously though, last season in both games, Allen had 34 completions on 61 attempts for 352 yards. That's 5.8 YPA and 10.4 YPC. and an average of 17 completions for 176 YPG. The Jets D is not any worse. Their O is improved, significantly. It would seem that if we're to win this game however, that type of receiving role is going to be well-utilized. The more I look at the Jets and this game the more concerning it becomes. If we're going to win this game it would seem that two things are going to have to be on their A-game, first, our OL play, and secondly, Harty, Kincaid and whomever else is going to be on the short dumpoff game. I don't see how we win this if we can't put up more than 20 though. I see the Jets taking advantae of the middle of our D. And BTW, Diggs had 9.6 targets/game last season, next most was Davis at 6. 8's a lot.

To start, I've written for a living as well. I've actually been recognized for it. But that's neither here nor there. To start, relax, this should be fun discussion back and forth, no one should expect widespread agreement on anything that's posted here, or in any forum for that matter other than perhaps car repair. LOL Here's the thing, look at what you wrote, the highlighted part that you took issue with, re-read it. I caught this after your first edit by the way, which I was originally prepared to respond to. But consider, what did I actually say? There's a word that I used, deliberately, so as not to approach putting words in your mouth, but you cannot get around that. Somehow I knew you'd respond in this way. We're not going to agree on this, ever it seems. At the same time, it also cannot be proven one way or another. However, I will say this, twice now, I've tried to engage you regarding particulars on different teams of ours over the past 20+ years, and both times you've abandoned the track. I can see why, it's obvious to me. But that's your choice. So as with you, I meant what I said. But the reasons why are also perfectly valid, whether you agree with them or not, and no, I don't expect you to. Why not? Because if you did, other questions would arise regarding your opinion, which would in fact conflict with it. And look, I get it, biases enter in. It's sports after all, where in particular fan interests, hopes, dreams, wishes, etc., all factor in. Some are better at stripping those off than others. You largely do, but you still have some pro-McD biases. Less so with Beane. Of course it does, but where you stop short is in how much, to what extent. You'll stop debating and discussing at that point, as you have with me. You know what I mean. And relatedly, you still owe me some "homework" on Gilliam. And no, I'm not expecting to ever see that, just saying. Same vein except you seem to be more resigned there. Otherwise, I'm happy to look it over. Yes, I realize that you disagree on that point, BUT, you've now put words into my mouth. I never said that Marrone was a good coach or better. To the contrary, I didn't care for him. But you lose this argument in that you entirely ingore, among other things such as those touched upon above, when you claim that McD is so much better (aka "a LOT better"), per your statement immediately above, when Marrone posted the exact same record in 2014 as McD did in 2017, yet on the merits that McD made the playoffs (forget that he backed in with help from Cincy for the sake of argument) but entirely verifiably with an incredibly easier record than Marrone had in 2014, and without having had Manuel start a bunch of games, to which you even admitted that had Orton, of all QBs, started that season, Marrone would have also A, gone at least 10-6, but B, made the playoffs that season. Then, while saying that "Of course Quarterback matters in terms of making the playoffs. It matters more than anything else.", above, you seem to completely ignore that in any comparisons. You'll avoid direct questions about rosters, strength of schedule comps, how many games a great QB makes in terms of overall W/L (record), etc. BTW, here's a hint on that, look at Belichick's pre/post-Brady records, which largely agrees with my take on him, namely that without Brady he'd have posted nothing but records on or about .500 or a game, possibly two greater, which is exactly what he's done since. At the end of the day the notion that McD would be great w/o Allen is an opinion. We won't find out. At the same time, I never said that Marrone was better, what I've said is that McD is overrated. The only two seasons that we have available for a direct comparison are 2017 and 2018, which don't stack up favorably for McD. But at the same time, and out of the other side of their mouths, his apologists cite the lack of a QB for the issue, while missing that incongruous irony entirely. Otherwise, 15-17 in two seasons with Taylor and Allen as a rookie, with one "making the playoffs" per the criteria I've outlined below, season, and resulting in a completely unimpressive wild-card round loss. Levy was overrated as well. He did nothing significant in KC before coming to Buffalo and being the coach for a group of players that Polian called "special" in terms of NFL rosters over the years. Even here he posted two losing seasons first, going 40-55 (.421) before Polian's insane levels of talent collected began coming in. Even then, I've often said, that if we had been coached by the coaches that beat Levy in the Super Bowl, Parcells, Gibbs, or Johnson, we'd be owners right now of at least two Lombardis. Yes, that is my opinion, but based on the above and other factual information, particularly about how those games were coached, on both sides. Levy, like McD, was what they used to call a player's coach. You know what I mean. They don't see to use that term anymore. Today, they say other things, like "he's created a winning culture," which is soft. Any team that wins and makes the playoffs has a "winning culture." That's why it's a "winning culture," because they win. But when that's the #1 thing that can be said about a coaching regimen, without question it leaves the door wide open for critique as such. Case in point: Is McD a good in-game tactician? I think if you posted a poll you might be suprised at the results. We do know that it's among the primary complaints about him during the season and on gamedays, particularly in the playoffs. But in my world, that's far more important than "creating a winning culture" when lots of coaches would "create a winning culture" with Allen as their QB, along with other attributes that he's not noted for, such as in-game adjustments. He's not bad, but to suggest that it's a strong suit is a real reach. It also doesn't say much that McD simply can't win playoff games, with a single exception, unless Allen has a great game. To me those are far more important. And if that's the case, like us also winning many games because Allen has great games, why wouldn't that apply to other coaches as well? There's no good answer to that. Using the biggest argument in favor of McD being a good coach, as "creating a winning culture," is soft. And IMO, as in my opinion, it's preposterous to consider that if Marrone had Allen, he wouldn't have gone 2-3 games better than he had, if not 4+, and possibly won the division, but if not, for sure made the playoffs as the wild-card with the best record that season, and coupled with the 4th ranked D in the league that season, likely would have at least advanced past the Divisional round. To suggest otherwise ignores the following facts: Marrone's 2014 9-7 played a far tougher schedule than McD's 2017 9-7 team. McD's 9-7 team in 2017 beat only two playoff teams, both 10-6 and the NFC's 6th seed. In 7 of 9 wins he beat not one team better than 6-10. He lost to four playoff teams and the 9-7 Chargers. He went 3-3 in the division, scoring 107 points while allowing 138 points for a per-game average of 18-23. He "made the playoffs," in favor of three other 9-7 teams, all with better offenses and defenses, as a result of a meaningless win for a team that managed to pull out of a hat the unlikeliest victory that season. Marrone's 2014 9-7 team beat three playoff teams that season including New England, Detroit (11-5) and Green Bay (12-4) in a sweep of the NFC North. Green Bay was the 2nd playoff seed. He lost to the 2nd seed in the AFC, and three teams that barely missed the playoffs equally at 9-7, and 8-8 divisional foe Miami. He went 4-2 in the division, scoring 158 points while allowing 104 points for a per-game average of 26-17 in those 6 divisional games. That's 8 PPG greater on O and 6 PPG fewer on D, , for a 2 TD swing. That's significant. And, let's not forget that McD had notably a notably easier schedule in 2017, and 2018 for that matter. All in all, the combined record of teams beaten by McD's Bills was 57-87, and the combined records of teams that his Bills lost to was 69-43. His team was blown out in 4 of those 7 losses, 53-161, an average of 13-40, and losing those games by 20, 21, 30, and 37. All in all, the combined record of teams beaten by Marrone's Bills was 70-74, and the combined record of teams that his Bills lost two was 62-50. Marrone's biggest loss was by 15 points, and his schedule was notably tougher. Marrone's team had a +54 Point-Differential that season. 343-289 In his 9 wins, the team scored 231 and allowed 118, an average of 26-13. In his 7 losses the team scored 112 and allowed 171, an average of 16-24. McD's team had a -57 Point-Differential that season. 302-359 In his 9 wins, the team scored 209 and allowed 135, an average of 23-15. In his 7 losses the team scored 93 and allowed 224, an average of 13-32. On McD's 2017 schedule, the teams he faced had offenses ranked, the bolded ones were the wins: 2nd (twice), 4th, 6th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 18th, 23rd, 24th (twice) 26th, 27th, 28th (twice), 30th Average Offensive ranking of teams played: 17.5 Average Offensive ranking of teams beaten: 22.1 On McD's 2017 schedule, the teams he faced had defenses ranked: 3rd, 5th (twice), 8th, 10th, 11th, 15th, 16th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th (twice), 29th (twice), 30th Average Defensive ranking of teams played: 17.1 Averaged Defensive ranking of teams beaten: 24.9 On Marrone's 2014 schedule, the teams he faced had offenses ranked: 1st, 2nd, 4th (twice), 11th (twice), 14th, 16th, 17th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 27th, 28th (twice), and 31st Average Offensive ranking of teams played: 16.2 Average Offensive ranking of teams beaten: 18.2 On Marrone's 2014 schedule, the teams he faced had defenses ranked: 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th (twice), 9th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 17th, 20th (twice), 24th (twice), 31st, and 32nd Average Defensive ranking of teams played: 15.2 Average Defensive ranking of teams beaten: 15.9 After that, all we can do is compare the two with Allen, and even then, is 2018 went 6-10 where McD's game and offensive scoring metrics got even worse, and worse offensively than all but four of our drought era teams. 2001, 2003, both under Williams, and 2007 and 2009, both under Jauron, ironically also both defensive coaches. Defensively his 2018 scoring metrics weren't great either, being worse than all but 7 seasons in the drought era, primarily under Williams and Gailey. Argue as you may, but that's a lot (of facts) to contradict in coming to your conclusion. But then on top of it to insist that Allen's not by far and away the primary reason why the team is doing anything to me is to be disingenuous. As often mentioned, at some point it's going to become apparent that McD has been resting on Allen's laurels so to speak. I suspect that point in time will begin following this season as I suspect that McD's going to have quite fewer apologists in his corner. If he even approaches putting up the #1 D this season you can count me in as being surprised. We'll see.

We did? Not from me you didn't. But last season, of the Chargers' 7 losses, 5 were to playoff teams including KC twice. The other two losses were to divisional teams, similar to the two we dropped to the Fins and Jets. Two of those were to the Chiefs, both by 3 points, and once in a game whereby the Chargers had generally outplayed the Chiefs. Swap those two games for example, which might easily happen this season, and both teams finish 12-5 all other things being equal. But KC's offense isn't what it was last season, which IMO was obvious before last night's game, which was worse for Mahomes than any last season, largely for the very reason of his WRs all being average on a good day. The Chargers also get Bosa back. On the other side, besides the two Charger games, the Chiefs won 3 games by 3 or fewer points, and 5 in one-possession games, and not against stellar competition; the Raiders, the Broncos twice, the Texans, and the Titans, a bunch of teams with combined 21 wins among them, or an average of 5 wins apiece. This season instead of playing the AFC South, the weakest division in football last season, and the NFC West, they play our division and the NFC North, and they already lost to the Lions, who on that note last season had one of the worst couple of defenses in football. I doubt that KC plays well against the Jets for example. We shall see, but if in Mahomes worst outting of any through all of last season, the best that they can do, is put up 20 points, even without Kelce, it's going to be a rough ride for them this season against the schedule that they have. ... which also features the Jags and Cincy like us, but also Philly. Even if Kelce stays healthy after this injury, I still put a ceiling of 12 wins for them up and no better than a split with the Chargers. We'll see however. IMO Cincy's not the team we need to worry about. Jax, the Bengals, and Jets are, and the Jets because we play them twice and couldn't put up more than 20 points, 19 1st-Downs, or 317 total yards up against them last season. This MNF game looms huge for us. ... for them as well, but since we're Bills fans ...

It wasn't the defense that choked. This game for Mahomes was worse than any game last season. And the Chiefs were only held to 20 twice, once against us, and one to 17. They were 1-2 in those games. Detroit had the worst D or two in the league last year. This game was not a good sign for the Chiefs' season.

Not with receivers like they have this season. I wouldn't be surprised if the Chargers won that division.

Dude's got crap for receivers.

"The report says that there is concern about what Linda might post about online after the breakup,..." LOL It'll be great if it happens!

Yes, that's correct. IMO had Marrone been coaching this team he'd have done the same, perhaps more in the playoffs, than McD. What you're implying then though, whether you realize it or not, is that the QB wouldn't have mattered in "getting to the playoffs." Here's the issue you yourself said that had Manuel not started the season for four games, Marrone would have gone to the playoffs. My position is two-fold; A. Put Allen on that team and Marrone does at least what McD's done here, and is more successful in the playoffs. B. Put Marrone as the coach of our current team during McD's tenure, and he also doesn't do any worse than McD's done. We'll never know, so it's not worth debating I suppose. Again, IMO we're going to find a lot out this season about McD and his staff. My expectation is that by season's end, he's going to have a substantially smaller number of people in his corner. As long as Dorsey has the offense in order, I don't think it's going to matter.

Keep in mind though, I'm not referring to any free agents. Remember, my point is that if apart from Allen, you took only the players that Beane has drafted, it's less than impressive if you were handed the team and asked to take over as GM. As you list, Edmunds, Johnson, Oliver, Singletary, Knox, Davis, Bass, Jackson, Rousseau. No OL Davis the only WR No RBs Rousseau and Oliver on the DL Edmunds the only LB Johnson, but not as a starting CB, apparently We can disagree, but IMO you're overrating Jackson as a good starter. I'd put him at a 5 tops. Agree on Singletary and Edmunds, but many here disagree whereas I think that both are going to do well elsewhere, and we didn't retain them, which is also part of the mix. Expensive free agents and not enough first contract players playing to the level of the free agents has disallowed us from retaining players like Edmunds. Which is part of the overall mix. Meh, we'll see how this season plays out. Hoping for the best. it's going to come down to the OL play and the addition of Kincaid. I realize I'm on the optimistic side here, but I'm hoping that my good chances of a franchise record setting Offense unfolds. As I've said before, I'm expecting both Diggs and Davis to go over 1,000 and Allen to exceed 5,000.

We touched on this before. We both seem to agree that a team loaded with players in the 6-8 caliber range (10 scale) is adequate. IMO more defenses than not have had comparable if not more talent. I'll take a few scattered ones throughout that era. In 2004, our DL of Kelsay, Adams, Williams and Schobel was at least as good as ours. Posey, Fletcher and Spikes as a better LB core, consider, we don't even have three like that today, only two bona fide starters. Our secondary McGee, Clements, Milloy and Reese is comparable to what we have today. Our OL was Jennings, Tucker, Teague, Villareal, and Williams, better than what we have now easily. I took a look at NFL OL rankings from as many sources as I could find recently, going into the season, and we're generally ranked from somewhere around average 16th or so, to mid-20s. I can't think of too many of our OLs that were that bad for as long as we've been in/around that area. It's hardly a stretch to realize that our past OLs haven't been worse than the one we've had on Beane's watch, often better. Exchange Allen for Bledsoe and it's unfathomable that we don't win that second game against the Jets, at least, and make the playoffs. The schedule that season was also one of the tougher ones we had in the drought years. Other defenses we've had: 2014: DL: Williams, Williams, Dareus, Hughes LB: Brown, Spikes, Bradham DB: McKelvin, Gilmore, Searcy, Williams A coupld of weaknesses there, but a better DL and Front-7 overall. Same thing there, that was an even tougher schedule and we finished 9-7, and as you and I have discussed before, with Orton at QB and you saying that we'd have made the playoffs had he started the first four games instead of Manuel. How much more with Allen at QB. (rhetorical) Assuming 10-6 with Orton at QB per your statements, I find it to be unfathomable that we wouldn't have won at least two more games if Allen had been our QB, and taken at least the 2nd if not the 1st seed for the playoffs. NE with Brady was still an obstacle, but we had a better defense then and at least as good skill position players on offense as well. Either way, there's some subjectivity built into this for both of us, it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme. Thanks for discussing.

I think that we're confusing what I said that you reacted to there. Certainly it is a really important part of the job, but what I said was this; You threw in the part about number of starting level players, but that's questionable at best apart from Johnson and Knox being above-average. Oliver's good, but I'd rate him a 6, 7 absolute max, and given that he was a 9th overall, that's really what we're discussing. Rousseau, big season. If he performs as he did in his last what, 9 or 10 games or so, he's a 5, at best. If he performs as he did in his first four last season, he's a 9 or 10. We'll see, but I'm not a fan of projecting a player's future on a streak of four games over a body of work that's 26 games otherwise, and those 26 games overall have been unimpressive and inconsistent at best. Bernard's a 4 tops Cook we'll see, he had limited use last season, 110 touches. We'll know more if he gets 200+. Brown, what, 4? 3? He's not average. We'll see how he does this season, but that's pending. As to Johnson, he's good as a NCB, but if he's that good, how come he's not starting opposite White. (rhetorical) You seem to have leapfrogged the starting spots while supporting that a GM needs to draft depth well too. The priority is for starters, then depth. Not visa versa. There's a lot pending, and I suspect that many of McD's apologists aren't going to be as much in his camp after this season, but that's hardly an impressive list of starters that Beane has drafted in his five drafts to day, this year's not included. We seem to disagree there, which is fine. We'll see. It all starts on Monday. GO BILLS!!

Agree. I'm hopeful of both Torrence and Kincaid. Cook not so much since he's never had more than 140 touches, 110 in the NFL, and he doesn't come acrossa as being a large robust RB that can take that kind of wear. We'll see though, I'm slightly hopeful there too. At the same time, we can survive and win a Championship without a top-10 RB, particularly w/ Allen at the helm. But Allen carries the perceptions that Beane is good. When I look at this roster without Allen on it, I see better rosters apart from the QB position in numerous years during our drought.

Thank you Again, we're getting into definitions, we probably agree for the most part, but the point is that neither is an impact player much less premier, where Beane has fallen short. Also, we can obviously discount 6th and 7th round picks since little is expected to come from them generally speaking. Typically if one gets a steady role-player or depth player that's a very favorable development. Otherwise let's not forget Moss, and Elam and/or Bernard may also end up there. But let's also keep in mind, that good GM's aren't known as being good due to their ability to stock a roster via their Drafts of depth caliber and otherwise average or thereabouts players.

Correct, hence all of the "depth" that we have on the team. Depth is great, when you have above-average starters, particularly difference makers. It is problematic for Cap reasons however if you constantly have to pay out to get those difference makers, often via high-risk contracts. Von Miller Floyd Diggs McGovern Hyde Jones Poyer All of them either have some risk associated with their signings or cost a lot more than third or fourth year players would that played at their levels given where we've drafted. Torrence pending, Beane has yet to draft an above-average OL-man He has yet to draft an above average WR (Davis? ... by the majority opinion here, no) He has yet to draft an above average RB. Cook pending Kincaid is pending, Knox is above average, but only marginally so. IMO Edmunds was an above-average LB, but it seems that a majority opinion here disagrees. Otherwise he has yet to draft an above-average LB. Rousseau may be above-average, Oliver is above-average, but given where he was drafted has obviously underperformed a 9th overall and the 2nd DT off the board, with several DTs taken after him having outperformed him. Beane has yet to draft an above-average DB besides Johnson who's also above-average but not by a lot. And that after having come from the DB coaching ranks, having played DB, and having spent more picks by position (8) on DBs than any other. JMO ... I know you disagree.

I would in turn ask, how many of the have become above-average starters. We all know Allen, but that singular pick of Allen also masks quite a few problems, both in drafting as well as on the field. I've been waiting for the official depth chart to come out to point out which draft picks are starters. On Defense where Beane's spent quite a few high-round (day 1/2) draft picks, we have: Rousseau Oliver Bernard Johnson Benford Of those, which are above-average? I'd say Rousseau pending this season, Oliver slightly, but not by much. After 6 DL picks, 4 in rounds 1 & 2, two in each round, and 4 LB picks with no LBs to show for it, is that good? If you were a DC and were handed that to build a D around, would you be happy? On offense, apart from Allen, same questions. How many above-average players has he drafted, and if you were an OC and were handed them, would you be content if the HC, GM, and owner expected you to put up a top-10 Offense? Davis Brown Knox Cook Gilliam Torrence too early despite him looking the part, same for Kincaid. Davis appears to have one foot out the door, not by his choice. Cook has yet to prove that he can withstand the rigors of more than 110 touches in the NFL. His high at Georgia was 140. Knox is like Oliver, above average although not by much, but inconsistent. We can factor in the free agents, but that doesn't have much to do with the Drafts. Also, where you avoid Cap troubles lies in drafting well. If you constantly have to pay top-dollar for players, at whatever level they're at, then Cap issues arise, necessarily. I know that I wouldn't be happy as an OC or DC if those cores were handed to me and I was expected to created a top-10 O or D unit.

I know you're screwing with him, but part of me is starting to think that the Fins are the least likely to make the playoffs this season. They've got two good WRs but after that not so much. If White or Thompson has to fill in again, they'll likely be in trouble. The odds of that happening are favorable.

Indeed, the AFC is no joke, but for the first time in what, 23 years, the division is no joke either. This season is going to be a referendum on several things, coaching among them, from McD through his imported from Carolina undistinguished assistants. I'm not saying that they're not going to cut it, but if they don't, I don't see the optics on that playing out very well at season's end. Miami's overrated IMO and far too reliant upon a QB that has yet in three seasons started more than 13 games with an overall starting rate of 68%, about two-thirds. He's also had his bell rung more than anyone should. I discount them winning the division but not causing problems for divisional rivals. Also, let's not forget that they nearly beat us in our own house in the playoffs with a 7th-round rookie QB. New England should be marginally better this season, and if Jones for some reason manages to take a decent step, they could make the playoffs. The Jets are the team to watch. We share the same schedule with them except that we play Cincy, Jax, and Tampa, while they play Cleveland, Houston, and Atlanta. The Tampa/Atlanta difference is a wash, but otherwise they have a two-game advantage in the schedule. This forthcoming game is key as is the series. Again, they beat us once last season with Zach Wilson at QB, w/o Cook & Hall, and with Wilson as a rookie. Now they have Rodgers, who no matter how it's sliced, is better than Wilson, Wilson (WR) in his second season, and Cook & Hall. They also played tenacious D against us at home in Buffalo, and held us to season worsts in several cats. We won but it wasn't pretty. Of 12 non-knee drives, four resulted in negative yards, one of those four in a safety, three more were 8 yards or fewer, 8 of 12 were punts, half were 3 plays. Our first five drives in that home game were punts, three were 3-and-outs. Two were negative yards. McD had better have something besides what he brought to the Jets last season up his sleeve if we're going to win this one. If we do manage to lose, the Jets have to be considered the favorites to win the division at that point.