BillsFanForever19

It is odd that there's been nothing. It makes me wonder if they think it's potentially something long, but they want results from all tests to make absolutely sure it is or isn't before they say anything. As at this point in his career, announcing that it's a long term injury would essentially be announcing his career is over.

Zy Alexander? He's an Undrafted Rookie that was cut by his original team and has been with us for a total of 2 days. He's still reading the playbook. Plug and play is barely a thing for tried and true veterans in this Defense. If Strong looked like he has the Defense down and has impressed the coaches during the off-season, I wouldn't be surprised to see him get a shot. But Dane Jackson and Ja'Marcus Ingram would and should be the next men up before Alexander. Even with Hairston out and White potentially being out, Alexander is unlikely to make the 53. He's just a body brought in to play in the last Pre-Season game. His ceiling is the Practice Squad.

I agree that with what I'm hearing from Sal, I don't believe Tre is dealing with a long term injury. But we won't know for sure until we know. As for the separate point about Samuel's market, if there were a team that would give him 8-10m, it would have happened by now. We're dangerously close to the time where he takes what's offered or he gets nothing and stays at home. That said, I'm not convinced that even if Tre was done that we'd call Asante. I'm willing to bet they'd call Rasul Douglas. Even though I think he's toast, their MO is always familiarity with McDermott's Defense before talent/ability. Especially being so close to Week 1. Not a lot of time to learn a new complicated playbook.

One thing that wouldn't surprise me, especially given the kind of names that are sitting out there, is if they sign a veteran to the Practice Squad. As I said in an earlier post, this is an almost exact copy of 2023. And in 2023, we signed Christian Kirksey to the Practice Squad just before the start of the year. A lot of people expected him to eventually become the Starter, but Terrel Bernard stepped up and locked down the position from the jump and Kirksey left town. It wouldn't surprise me if they did something similar at Safety. Bringing in a name to the Practice Squad to provide insurance and to push Cole Bishop to put his best foot forward. "Sir, this is a Wendy's"

How does that make sense? If they've lost Harmon, they'd be in need of a DT now - not 7 weeks from now. And any CB we'd get in a Trade for 11 games with Ogunjobi would be the caliber of player that wouldn't play over Dorian Strong, Dane Jackson, and Ja'Marcus Ingram.

And if we offered 56 or 62, not only would that cost us T.J. Sanders or at least Landon Jackson, who's to say the bidding war ends there? Like I said, the Jets included #42 conditionally. So if we beat their offer with one of those, it's very likely they then just offer #42 unconditionally. Then the only way to beat it is to give #30. Which is absolutely INSANE to offer for a half year rental on a 31 year old WR. On top of that, it's been said he wanted to go to the Jets and play with Rodgers again. You say that he doesn't have much say in the matter. He absolutely did. Trading for him would have required us to rework his contract. And he had the ability to say no to that to whichever team wanted to trade for him. So it very well may have been reunite with Rodgers or nothing: I don't know why you "keep coming back to" this idea. Cooper was an option. Adams wasn't once the Jets became involved because of their picks being higher than ours, even more so after it became known that's where he preferred to go, and had the power to say "no" to reworking his deal (which we'd have to do).

You're still doing it but implying "the Bills settled for a significantly worse player". The cap situation is part of it. The bigger part is that we didn't have the ammo to outbid the Jets. Their picks were better than ours. The Raiders weren't going to take #96 that could become #56 (if we were even willing to do that) when the Jets were offering #94 that could become #42.

There's been anonymous source scuttlebutt that he's "done". Implications that he's checked out. Which would explain why we didn't look to bring him back and why he's still on the street.

The other issue is that the picks that were being offered by the Jets were better picks than we could offer. The Jets sent a Round 3 Pick (#92) with conditions in the trade that could turn it into a Round 2 Pick (#42). Even if we matched the Rounds in the trade, they were still lesser Picks. It would have been a Round 3 Pick (#94) with conditions that could it into a Round 2 Pick (either #56 or #62). To beat their offer, we would have had to straight up offer either #56 or #62. Even then, since NYJ put in conditions to make it a 2nd anyways, there's no telling that they wouldn't have countered our offer and just straight up offered #42. That would have been game, set, match - just like the offer that they got him with. The Jets wanted him and had better picks to acquire him that we couldn't match. And that's not even taking the contracts into account. Cooper we were able to easily make work. Adams would have taken a LOT of work to fit in. All this to say you're oversimplifying matters by a LOT by making it just a decision of Cooper or Adams and that we made the wrong choice. Cooper was an option, Adams really wasn't once the Jets got involved.

Please show me where I said Rookies "can't" play well in their first year. I said you can't *rely* on that. That it's unlikely, especially with your first pick being around Pick 30, or in the case of this discussion, 33. And your gotcha's for last year prove my point more than yours. Of a field of 257 picks, you pointed to 7 players. I'll even add Brian Thomas Jr. to your list. Of those 8 players, only 2 were on the board when we picked. And we'd only be able to get 1 of them. Like above, you're taking words like "unlikely" to mean impossible. Statements like "you can't rely on Rookies in Year 1" to mean "Rookies will provide nothing". These are not things I'm saying. What I'm saying is to *expect* it is a lot to ask of them (especially where we're picking). To rely only on just them is foolish, which is why we don't if we can avoid it. The Defense will way more likely than not improve. But it's not all on the Rookies, like you're implying. And it's not all on the Veterans. It's in both. And also, it's in who they're replacing. At CB, from the field of Maxwell Hairston, Tre White, Dorian Strong, and Dane Jackson - to see an improvement they need to provide more than Rasul Douglas (who gave up a 144.2 passer rating when thrown on and is on the street bc he's toast), Kaiir Elam, and Ja'Marcus Ingram. At DE, from the field of Joey Bosa, Michael Hoecht, and Landon Jackson - to see an improvement they need to provide more than Von Miller and Dawuane Smoot. At DT, from the field of T.J. Sanders, Larry Ogunjobi, and Deone Walker - to see an improvement they need to provide more than Austin Johnson, Quinton Jefferson, and Jordan Phillips. These are not big asks of either the Rookies or the Veterans.

Not always. And this year, we have *so* many players dinged up, we can't really afford to do that - as we need to be able to field a team for the last Pre-Season game while also sitting a large percentage of the guys making the 53.

How do you consider it "dirty pool"? It's simply fact that most Drafted Rookies don't light the league on fire in Year 1. Especially when you're consistently picking at the bottom of Round 1. Yes, you need to be patient with Draft Picks. You can't rely on them to get the NFL game down immediately. And the Bills aren't doing that on Defense this year. They have fall back plans everywhere. We're not just relying on Maxwell Hairston and Dorian Strong. We signed Tre White and Dane Jackson. We're not just relying on T.J. Sanders and Deone Walker. We signed Larry Ogunjobi. We're not just relying on Landon Jackson. We signed Joey Bosa and Michael Hoecht. Of course you *want* to find 1st year impact players in the Draft. But the Draft is a crap shoot as is. It's an even bigger crap shoot if you're wanting to see major Year 1 impact. And an even bigger one still if you want Year 1 impact while consistently picking at the bottom of the Round.

The problem with that is what do you think the odds are that we'd pay Rousseau 80m with 54m guaranteed on one side AND pay the insane cost that an "elite guy" would cost on the other side - while also paying a top QB contract? To me, that's *incredibly* unlikely. This is why we took a chance on Joey Bosa on an injury prone discounted rate, signed Michael Hoecht, and Drafted Landon Jackson. With what we're paying Rousseau (on top of everything else), we need to hit on a cheaper option on the other side. Which is why I imagine this scenario has Rousseau involved in a Trade Offer for Hendrickson. We're scraping pennies together right now after all the deals we did. We're dead last on cap space and it's not looking good in future years, again, bc of all the deals and extensions we did. To fit a guy like Hendrickson on and pay him what he wants, we'd need to unload a big contract like Rousseau's. This is why I was out on extending Rousseau. If we need an Elite guy opposite Rousseau for him to be effective, why spend 20m a year on him? If he's something we absolutely needed back, why are we every year saying "we need a pass rush" and yearning for guys like Hendrickson? All that said though, I agree with you. I'm not giving up Rousseau and a 1st Round Pick for Trey Hendrickson. He's very good. But I don't think he's worth all of that. I'll take my chances on Bosa this year and Hoecht and Jackson in future years to be the answer. And bc of our Cap situation and all the deals we did, we're really going to need to rely on the Draft in the next couple years. We can't afford to give up 1st Round Picks, imo.

"Why don't we have any Year 1 Superstars with our highest pick being 33rd overall?!"

I'm sure a potential Samuel trade would just be something like Samuel and a 7th for a 6th, maybe even in 2027. It would be all about unloading the contract to make room. As we're currently Dead Last in the league with 1.7m for the 51. But we need to come up with a fair amount more to go from 51 to 53, pay the Practice Squad, and have some room for In Season Spending. But there's also some restructuring we can do to do that. You don't have to offer Special Teams as a 4th or a 5th WR, but it definitely doesn't help your chances if you're on the bubble if you don't. And that's where Moore kind of is. I'm getting an OJ Howard vibe from him. Down to the dollar amount in guarantees (2.5m isn't nothing, but it's not uncuttable), the lack of Teams, and a young guy on a minimum contract impressing underneath him while he isn't. Right now, I just as easily see him being cut as I do him sticking. If they have an actual interest in Davis and it's not just doing due diligence or helping someone they like out by manufacturing interest - I could easily see a scenario where down the stretch our WR core was Shakir, Palmer, Coleman, Davis, and Shavers.

Why is everyone assuming it's one or the other? First off, Gabe Davis won't be ready for Week 1. If signed, he'd be put on a list until he's ready. And by the time you're ready to activate him, who knows whether all of our WR's will still be healthy and active. Also, the only 3 WR's on this roster that you can say with 100% certainty are safe are Khalil Shakir, Josh Palmer, and Keon Coleman. Elijah Moore reportedly has not been impressing. Curtis Samuel has both Beane (who mentioned every WR on the roster *but* Samuel on McAfee) and McDermott (who said he needs to see urgency from Samuel down the stretch to see if and how he'll fit in the Offense) publicly not showing a lot of confidence in. Teams are openly in the vet WR Trade Market right now and if they can get out from his contract, I bet they would. At this point, it seems unlikely that both will stick on the roster and not completely out of the realm of possibility that neither do. I'd even go so far as to say I feel more confident that Shavers will stick than I do both of Moore and Samuel sticking together. And on top of all of that, 5 is what we carried last year. But we've carried 6 under the Beane and McDermott era more times than we've kept 5. So it's even possible to have Moore, Samuel, and Shavers sticking and Davis on PUP. All of this to say, you can easily come up with ways that both Shavers and Davis are here. And I find that to be a more likely scenario than only one or the other being here, if Davis were to be signed.

This is an exact re-run of Middle Linebacker in 2023. At the time, we had Tyrell Dodson and Terrel Bernard. Bernard was entering his second year and was hurt most of Training Camp. McDermott said the same thing about still figuring out the position and that he wanted to see someone step up, late into the Pre-Season. We all worried about how Bernard would handle the position, as we are now with Bishop. In the end, it worked out better than fine. Hopefully this ends up the same way with Bishop. Time will tell.

Yes. Mack Hollins' replacement is Josh Palmer. If he stays healthy and gets 15 starts and plays 20 games as Mack did, I'm willing to guarantee that he'll easily have more production than 482 yards. Beyond that, Palmer is a much better WR in every way. That's the crux of it. He wasn't going to supercede Shakir, Coleman, Palmer, or a healthy Samuel (with what we're paying him). And we're not going to pay a 2 year 8.4m contract with 3.5 guaranteed for WR5. For that role, we signed Elijah Moore to a 1 year deal worth 3.5m with 2.5m guaranteed. Moore has elite speed and more production in 4 years than Hollins has in 8. And if we could get out from under the contracts we have for Samuel (who was never supposed to be a 4th WR) and Moore, I think we would. It's likely the bottom of the WR roster gig will be held by Shavers, being paid the bare minimum. Also, Free Agency isn't a one way street. We can't *force* him to come back. It's not just the Bills who decide whether Hollins stays or doesn't - it's Mack himself and his agents. Who he reportedly told to "find him the best opportunity" and they came back saying New England. Even if we did decide to match the money (which we wouldn't) we'd also have to match the opportunity for playing time, which in New England, isn't the bottom of the WR roster like you said you were comparing him to here. Mack himself wouldn't (and didn't) turn down the opportunity for the kind of playing time he has in New England (where he could very well end up starting) to be a 4th (at best) or 5th WR with us. Like I said, it didn't make sense from our side to match the money and opportunity New England was offering. And at the same time, it didn't make sense from Mack's side to turn down the money and opportunity New England was offering. It's really as simple as that.

I'm 50/50 on it. I can see a scenario where he's cut. I can just as easily see a scenario where they expected he'd take a year or two of development and/or they like what they see in Practice and in Meetings. This board has zero patience for players who aren't lighting the world on fire as a Rookie. It wasn't too long ago Terrel Bernard was declared a bust after Year 1.

According to whom? We don't know what the development plans and expectations were for Olofoshio when they selected him in Round 5 last year. No one knows how long or how short his rope is with the team. It seems a pretty common practice around here for Day 3 Drafted players to be led to the gallows by posters after only one season if they haven't made an immediate impact as Rookies. When it's unlikely that they will, being Day 3 Picks. I'll never forget multiple respected posters on this board calling for Khalil Shakir to be cut for Andy Isabella after his Rookie year bc "what has Shakir done to earn a roster spot?". Long story short, he could be cut. But he could just as easily be given more than one season to see if he develops. It all depends on what they're seeing with him behind the scenes.

That may be true of his last game with us. I'm not defending that game and him dropping the ball there at the end. There's no question there was a fall off in his play and/or disconnect with the team at that point. And again, that was inexcusable. But the narrative of his Playoff "disappearing act" and my discussion of scheme is about much more than that game.

It doesn't mystify me in the slightest. Mack Hollins was never supposed to be relied on as heavily as he was. It was just a matter of Keon Coleman not being ready for primetime out of the gate, Keon dealing with injuries, and Curtis Samuel being hampered for the majority of the year with injuries. And ultimately, his even being here had to do with what we could afford at the time. Hollins was always brought in to be mainly a Blocker and Special Teams ace. He wasn't someone in their long term plans as a WR. Extenuating circumstances and him overachieving led to a bigger role and more production than expected. Even then, his abilities and what he did last season are greatly exaggerated by Bills fans. In 20 games and 15 of those him starting, he put up 482 yards and 6 TD's. That's a lot more than was expected of him. But that's still not great numbers. If you can do better than that (and we could this offseason), you absolutely should. When the time came that we could do more at the position, you want to have someone more talented there than Mack Hollins playing as much as he was. And as likeable as Hollins is as a character, Josh Palmer is world's more talented as a WR. We signed Mack Hollins to a 1 year 2.6m contract with 1.1m guaranteed. The Patriots signed him to a 2 year 8.4m contract with 3.5m guaranteed. That's a massive pay raise and a longer term contract. And that kind of contract means a decent role in the WR room. He may even start opposite Diggs. But we were already looking to upgrade from him. If Mack wanted to sign on for another 1 year deal with a slight pay increase and a role more in line with our original plans where he's not used as much as a WR, I'm sure they'd have brought him back. We were never going to match the kind of money and the kind of role NE was offering. And that was the right call for both Mack and the Bills.