BillsFanForever19

I love the concept of telling players they need to shut up when they simply answer questions from a request from the media.

I mean, if your logic towards our room is applied, Jennings and Pearsall shouldn't mean anything. We paid Samuel 24m with 15 guaranteed. And you don't view him as a difference making starter. So Jennings at a much less amount of 15m with 10 guaranteed should be viewed even less, right?. And he's also a Slot WR, so that has no barring on the Outside. Like Samuel to Jennings, Pearsall is equal to Keon Coleman, taken at Pick 31 to Coleman's 33. So if Coleman is a concern and shouldn't be counted on - wouldn't it be the same for Pearsall in SF? And unlike Coleman, a True X, Pearsall is viewed as an Inside/Outside Tweener - more naturally fit as a Slot. Logan Thomas? How does signing a Backup TE for Kittle apply to anything? And you're looking at the CMAC deal all wrong. This extension isn't a bad thing for a possible Aiyuk deal in SF - it's actually a good thing. It makes getting a deal done with Aiyuk *more* likely, not less likely like you're implying. Currently, the 49ers have over 30m in Cap Space for this season. Ultimately, the consensus out of the Bay area is that Aiyuk will get done sometime this Summer and they're going to get out from Deebo's deal next offseason. And if the plan is to get out from Deebo next season, why would they move Aiyuk this offseason as well? This is an NFC Championship team looking to go back to the Super Bowl. They have the means to keep their Superstar core together and the CMAC deal makes it easier to do so. If the historic WR market makes it so they feel they can't in good conscience pay Aiyuk's asking price because it's so insane, when they have the means to, are looking to repeat, and Samuel isn't in their long term plans - you think *we're* going to pay that price tag and give up prime Draft compensation for the privilege to do so?

They technically could do more with Josh's contract - but I don't see that happening. He's never restructured a contract multiple times in the same Offseason. I don't know the reasoning as to why he didn't do the full amount when he did, but there must have been a reason. And whatever it was, I think he would have just done it then if he was going to take more. We've pulled the cords on literally every release, restructure, or potential extension possible that could save us cap space already this offseason - save for just two. You could do a restructure of Matt Milano that could save us 2.4m and a restructure of Ed Oliver that could save us 3.9m. But much like restructuring Josh, the fact that we chose not to do those when we were doing literally EVERYTHING possible to create space says to me there's probably a reason he chose not to do those. So those three are options. But I'd be surprised if he did them. And ultimately, he's addressed every single spot on the roster that needed a replacement - save for one. Douglas replaced White. Hardy replaced Neal. But we never replaced Dane Jackson. And with how often Benford gets injured and Elam still being a question mark, I don't see them relying on UDFA and PS players to replace Dane Jackson. So that's the one spot I could see a move and we can probably use what little is left from Tre's money after the Rookie contracts, Practice Squad, and In Season Spending Pool is accounted for to address that.

The Draft Picks will only cost about 2-3m. But they also need a few million to pay for the Practice Squad and a few million for in season spending.

It's only a "shocking" downgrade if you're looking at Madden Ratings or how exciting the star power looks on a piece of paper. If you evaluate what this Offense looked like from the 2nd Half of last season through the playoffs, our Offense ran through Cook, Kincaid, and Shakir. What did the other two players on your list, Diggs and Davis, bring? Answer: Little to nothing. In fact, had Diggs not made a couple of key drops - we may have beaten the Chiefs and then who knows? It's clear as day "you're not on board with this year's moves". And that's a fine opinion to have. But "this year's moves" have been done and most of them aren't going anywhere. Chase Claypool, Justin Shorter, and KJ Hamler might all be cut (though i'd expect one of the first two to stick). But Beane isn't cutting Coleman, Samuel, MVS, or Hollins. And we only had 4 WR's exit the building needing to be replaced. And when you look at the production from Diggs/Davis last year that they'll be replacing, it would be very hard for Coleman and Samuel to bring less than what Diggs and Davis gave us in the 2nd Half and beyond last season when we were rolling. As for the "rebuild" - the answer is in Beane's own word. He's never said "I'll never rebuild with Josh". What he's said was that as long as he has Josh Allen, they're never fully in a true rebuild. But with *23* players exiting the building, a new DC (who may or may not be calling plays), essentially a new OC (as he never installed *his* playbook last season), other new coaches, 4/5 or 5/6 of a new WR core, a new(/old) starter at Defensive End, a new interior Offensive Line, 3/5 of a new DT rotation, an entirely new Safety core, a mainly new Special Teams core, and many other depth/rotation replacements - this simply IS, in his own words, a "transition year". Which is him admitting that this is as close to a rebuild as it can get, while still maintaining a Franchise QB. So is he "really going to do a rebuild in the middle of Josh's prime?". By definition, it already *is* a rebuild. We didn't really have a choice with the cap situation we were in. You can't replace the amount of players and coaches we replaced and NOT be rebuilding. Like it or not, and many of us don't, it just is what it is. Regardless of whether or not you're willing to accept reality.

Also have to pay for the Practice Squad for the year.

Knox is our standard hand in the dirt, on the line Tight End. Kincaid is only technically a Tight End. Like Kelce, he's really a Big Slot WR. He doesn't often put his hand down. WAY more often than not, Knox is on the field with Kincaid split out wide next to him. If there's a Tight End on the line, it's going to be Knox unless he needs a breather.

I give my opinion and stance on almost everything on this board. Yes, I publicly stated we wouldn't trade Diggs or cut Hines and I took those L's and admitted to those L's. I still do. I was wrong on those. But to act as if those are the only opinions and stances I've taken this year and I've been wrong about everything is highly inaccurate. I've taken more hard-line stances on things that were met with similar opposition as those mistakes and were correct way more than incorrect. And as for this, I'm not saying it's 100% impossible or 100% won't happen. I'm saying it's incredibly unlikely for a number of different reasons and that the idea that's "this has been the plan all along" does not compute with what he's done and what he'd have to do, to do it. And honestly, I'd love to be wrong about this one too.

Around and around we go... You are constantly connecting dots that do not connect. In a board full of pie in the sky posters, you are literally the only poster who thinks this is not only likely, but is practically guaranteeing it's going to happen. And if anyone disagrees with the likelihood of it happening, it means to you that the "love for Beane is deep" and we all love how he built the room and don't question whether or not it's going to work. That just doesn't compute to me. You can look at the state of the roster and what he's done so far and simultaneously wish that a.) he had gotten someone bigger and also b.) think it's very unlikely at this point that he will. Those thoughts are not mutually exclusive. And honestly, that's probably the vast majority of posters. He drafted Keon Coleman with the first pick in the 2nd Round. He gave Curtis Samuel a long term 24m contract with 15m guaranteed. He went out and signed Mack Hollins on Day 1 or Day 2 of FA to guaranteed money and a specific role. He signed MVS to guaranteed money and a specific role. He added Chase Claypool and KJ Hamler. He spent a 5th Round investment on Justin Shorter just last year and redshirted him in preparation for this season. That's SEVEN new WR's, with no less than 4 of them are guaranteed to be here. He's not cutting Coleman, Samuel, MVS, or Hollins. And we only had 4 spots to replace. If doing a big time trade now was "the plan" - there would have been multiple moves he made that he wouldn't have made. It's as simple as that. If he added an 8th new rosterable WR, he'd have to cut half of them and that's not going to happen.

He was completely cleared. That's the bottom line. The cops investigated and didn't charge him. She didn't file a Civil Suit. And he's had no other issues. The WWE, UFC, and the NFL all wanted to sign him. They're all Billion dollar companies with PR teams where sexual assault is a no go. In the case of WWE and the UFC, they're publicly traded. They surely have PI's that got all of the information, much more than what's available to us. And they all felt he was safe to sign and in the WWE and NFL's case, did sign him. The UFC would as well, if he chose them.

He's a developmental camp prospect. It's not like we had the option to sign someone who's never played Football before or we sign a Pro Bowler, and they went with Steveson over the Pro Bowler. It's like complaining about signing Undrafted Free Agents.

Kendal Vickers isn't on the team anymore.

Chris Hogan played a year of College Football at Monmouth though.

Jordan Mailata just signed a 3 year, 66m contract extension with the Philadelphia Eagles. He had zero NFL experience and entered the league from Rugby. He's now a top paid, top performing Left Tackle in the NFL. Is that common? No. But you never know what you're going to get when you bet on athleticism. The Eagles and Eagles fans are sure glad they took a chance on an athletic guy with no experience. I can't imagine getting upset over signing a Camp Body. It has absolutely no bearing on anything. You act as though we would have acquired a Pro Bowl player at another position if we hadn't brought him in. It doesn't preclude any other signing. We just traded out a guy who had no shot at making the roster for someone who most likely wont. It's no risk, no guarantees, all reward.

Really wild how he won the Gold medal. Got a 2 point grab to secure the win literally at the last second. https://youtu.be/fSXPmihrX3c?si=QpedPCJzdR1NfiFT

I never understand the uproar of signing a Camp Body who most likely has a ceiling of the Practice Squad. It's just a lottery ticket, gambling on his literal Olympic winning athleticism. It's not like signing someone like Steveson keeps us from signing a difference maker at any position. It doesn't have any barring on any other acquisition. Like, who cares?

You're probably right. But we generally keep 5 DT's. Ed Oliver, Daquan Jones, Dewayne Carter, and Austin Johnson are locks. But for the last spot, it's Dashawn Williams, Eli Ankou, UDFA Branson Deen, and him. It'll probably be Williams, but he only has 15k in guaranteed money. So if Steveson was able to translate his freak athleticism at an accelerated rate - it wouldn't be completely unheard of for him to take that last spot, as there's no real guaranteed money locked in to DT5.

Yes, because i'm sure there's absolutely no difference between you - message board poster, and him - 2 Time NCAA Heavyweight Wrestling Champion and Olympic Gold Medalist, when it comes to athleticism. Matt Haack would have been 30 years old if he was in Training Camp and had no shot at making the roster....

I would be. He'd have been traded already if anyone was offering us anything beyond a bag of balls. After spending a 1st on him, they're going to give him every chance to bloom before they trade him for nothing. And as others have pointed out, behind Douglas and Benford - all we have is Elam and a camp of Practice Squad and UDFA players. We've yet to replace Dane Jackson on the team - I don't see us replacing Elam too with the field of guys we have at our disposal beyond him. There's been a sentiment that our former CB coach was not a fan of Elam, personally or professionally, and that it contributed to both Elam's stunted development and the DB coaches firing. Beane reportedly told Elam it's a clean slate for him this season and I suspect much of that was due to having a new coach. He'll be given this season. If he underperforms in Year 3 - it'll probably spell the end for him.

I'm not saying that it's a sure thing that Shakir will be even better if given more opportunities. But it's unfair to point to Gabe Davis and say that since he didn't produce when given a promotion, that no one else ever should be afforded a bigger role. It's common practice that if you have a young player who exceeded expectations in a minimal role and is on an upward swing of ascension that they are rewarded with more opportunities. Sometimes the development continues and the player ascends. Sometimes they fall on their face like Davis. And I'm not saying we should make Shakir the focal point of the passing game. But it would be crazy after his production (especially down the stretch) last season in a minimal role to maintain him as someone who is no higher than 5th in targets on the team (as he was last season).

I wouldn't hate it. But I don't think we're adding another DE and Ngakoue isn't signing for league minimum. We lost Leonard Floyd (who was only really here bc of Miller not starting the year) and Shaq Lawson. Since then we've signed Dawuane Smoot (to some guaranteed money), Casey Toohill, and Drafted Javon Solomon in the 5th (who should have been Drafted higher). We also re-signed AJ Epenesa to a long term deal with a BIG pay raise. Of all the FA signings we've done, OJ Howard is the only one to ever be released when signed to guaranteed money. And of all the Draft Picks we've made higher than Round 6, Vosean Joseph is the only one to ever be released without ever being on the 53. If Epenesa were someone they felt couldn't be a Starter if Miller doesn't bounce back, they wouldn't have signed him and to the money they did. Between Epenesa and Miller and what they're being paid, one of them is going to start and one of them is going to be DE3. We're only keeping 5 DE's max. I don't see Smoot or Solomon being cut. And none of Groot, Epenesa, and Miller are going anywhere this season. That's your 5. As it is, there isn't much of a path for Casey Toohill or Kingsley Jonathan to make the 53. I don't see them also cutting either a productive DE signed to some guaranteed money or a 5th Round Rookie. Which is what it would take to fit Ngakoue on to the 53. I've said it before but when it comes to post 6/1 additions - i'd be looking at Cornerback. There's still a surprisingly decent crop of FA's left. And we never addressed the departure of Dane Jackson. We replaced White last season with Douglas. We replaced Neal with Hardy. But beyond Douglas and Benford (who is often injured), it's just Elam (still a massive question mark) and then Jackson's spot is currently to be filled by a UDFA or Practice Squad player.

Those of us pointing out that with what's in house combined with the moves he's already made lead to it being unlikely he's going to add more, does not mean everyone's 100% all on board with what's he done and think he's done a great job. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. I too worry that the build of this room and him banking on potential over established stars might not work like he thinks it will. But that doesn't automatically equate to "he's definitely going to trade for a WR". It's not "bias" to look at things and say it's unlikely he's going to cut all but one player out of the field of MVS, Hollins, Claypool, and Hamler. You invoke the name of OJ Howard. OJ Howard is very much the exception and not the rule. As @HappyDays pointed out, he's the only player under the Beane regime to get guaranteed money as a FA and be cut. As i've said, it's just like last year with Harty and Sherfield. It's fine to say, you don't like Samuel, MVS, Hollins, Claypool and Hamler and that he should have acquired someone bigger. It's another to expect him to cut 3 out of the 5 of the guys he's just brought in. Which is what it would require if we were to keep the same number of WR's we kept last season. Much like Harty and Sherfield last year, regardless of your thoughts on Samuel, MVS, and Hollins - they aren't going anywhere. And then there's Justin Shorter, who would also have to be cut. Say what you will about Beane drafting him or drafting him where he did. But much like the Howard discussion, there's literally only been one time in Beane's tenure where we outright cut a player drafted before Round 6 without ever being on the 53 (Vosean Joseph in 2020). There's a large number of discrepancies with what you not only hope, but expect. But ultimately, it's a numbers game. And he's already brought in an equal amount of players that absolutely won't be cut, proportionate to the amount of roster spots that needed to be replaced. And that's not even counting guys like Chase Claypool, Justin Shorter, and KJ Hamler.

It's not "apprehension". It's a matter of it could be any of a number of 4 different WR's. All of them have the potential to be the #1 WR for this team. Did anyone have on their bingo card that down the stretch and in the playoffs that the passing game would run through Khalil Shakir and Dalton Kincaid? And to use the example of the LA Rams - did anyone have Puka Nacua, a 5th Round Rookie, putting up 1500 yards? You discount Keon Coleman and his potential. You obviously weren't a fan of him in the Draft process. But that doesn't mean he can't be good. Beane thinks he can be and that he is. You called him WR8 of the Draft. Sure, that's where he was selected. But if Beane viewed him as any worse than WR5, he wouldn't have traded down with KC and again with Carolina. He did that because he felt that after Thomas was taken by Jacksonville, the next group of 3-4 WR's were all on the same level. It's been alluded to that he would have selected Coleman at 28 as WR5 if he hadn't moved down. It's been outright said he was going to take him at 32 before Carolina called him and he knew it was for Legette. Coleman reminds me an awful lot of the Josh pick around here. He wasn't the guy for posters. But we were wrong. Much like Allen, there is cons to Coleman as a prospect. But that doesn't mean there aren't pros. Coleman could be the Top 10 WR you're thirsting for. We won't know until he is given the opportunity to show it. But it seems you don't want to even give that a chance in Year 1. We drafted Dalton Kincaid in Round 1 last year. And as a Rookie, he exceeded expectations down the stretch. So the team wants to give him more opportunities and hopes growth continues in Year 2, as it's pretty much expected that he will. He IS a WR first and foremost. He barely lines up as a TE, regardless of his title. He's a Travis Kelce clone. I'm not saying he is Travis Kelce or that he will become that. But i'm also not saying he doesn't have the talent level and potential to at least be close to that level either. He was a prime investment for us. If you take a WR in Round 1, you showcase him. To see him grow and evaluate what he is/what he can become - he needs to be giving a prime role in this offense, the same as Coleman. This room provides him with that. The addition of the kind of guy you're (somehow) expecting, would limit that kind of role. The same goes for Khalil Shakir. He's a guy that burst onto the scene in Year 2. No one expected the kind of player he was for us at the end of the year. I've listened to analysts say all offseason "I LOVE Khali Shakir" and he's been pegged as a potential future superstar, maybe as early as this year. Much like I discussed with Kincaid before him, how could you not increase his role and opportunities following his 2nd year? It'd be borderline malpractice to do that with either of them as they are continuing to develop. Either one of them could be the Superstar #1 you say we don't have. Then there's Curtis Samuel. A guy who has produced at a high level for a number of years, playing with QB's nowhere near on the level of Josh Allen. He was signed to a 3 year, 24 million dollar contract - with 15m in guaranteed money. This kind of investment denotes a decent role in this offense. Again, to add another WR of this level would be to push one of these 4 to 5th in targets on the team and a minimal role. There's only so many balls to go around. For example, 5th in targets for this team last year was a total of 45 targets all year. One of these guys would be denoted to an average of 2 and a half targets total per game. None of these players should be or will be relegated to such a role. You have an obsession with how things look "on paper". But the Super Bowl Champion "on paper" before the year is WAY more often than not the real Super Bowl Champion. Yes, KC had a top 10 player in Travis Kelce. But what was their core beyond him? MVS, Mecole Hardman, Rashee Rice, and Skyy Moore. While not having the established, sure fire Top 10 WR they had - as a core beyond it, i'd take the guys we have (including MVS) over that. And I do believe that odds are more likely than not that 1 out of the field of 4 of Keon Coleman, Dalton Kincaid, Khalil Shakir, or Curtis Samuel will be able to fill the #1 role at a decent to high level. They all carry the potential to do so. You seem to look at things as though if you're not eating at an established 5-star Michelin restaurant, you're eating garbage. Would I have preferred we had a more sure fire thing going into this year? Yes, I would have. But he's built this room in his vision of spreading the ball around, not having a Diggs like player that Allen feels he needs to target X number of times to keep him happy, and evaluating the growth of his investments. This room is not the garbage you portray it to be. There is talent there. But we need to see it grow. And that means giving them the opportunities to do so. He's betting on potential and development over established stars. You obviously disagree with this course of action, but that is *clearly* the course. Like it or not, and it's fair to not, the WR Room is set. We only kept 5 WR's last season (in large part because Kincaid is a WR) and we have 5 WR's that are locks. The likelihood of what you not only hope for, but expect/say will happen, is as likely as it was for us to move up in the Top 10 of the Draft. It's just like last season. It's fair to say you feel he hasn't done enough. But what he has done (just like Harty and Sherfield last year) IS done. And those guys aren't going anywhere.

What happened to the "Coleman will have a hard time starting the year" quote is that he said it only one time during his intro press conference. And to that, I think @HappyDays put it best in another thread when it comes to that quote: Since making that statement, he's confirmed Happy's sentiment by calling Coleman on at least 3 separate occasions "The X". That's his role on the team and that was Diggs' role on the team. Will being this team's X make him the #1 WR? It really depends on your definition. If your definition is the go to option or the WR with the most yardage - time will tell on that. But if your definition of WR1 is the starting X WR - then, yeah, Keon Coleman is WR1. As for the question of who I think the #1 WR will end up being, in terms of yardage and production, I don't have a Crystal Ball. But I imagine it will be one of Keon Coleman, Dalton Kincaid (a Big Slot WR in reality and a TE in name only - like Von Miller is a "LB"), Khalil Shakir, or Curtis Samuel. That uncertainty is something else that Beane has also spoke of multiple times since the Draft. He's said on a number of occasions that he wanted to create a room where week to week, that #1 option could change. Where the ball is spread around and there isn't just one Diggs like player that the Defense keys in on. And that comes to another problem with your theory. If they were to trade for a WR (unlikely at this stage IMO for a number of other reasons, as I've discussed) - that would mean that one of Coleman, Shakir, Kincaid, or Samuel would likely be no better than option 5 when it comes to targets and reps. And with what they've invested in that group, how they want to develop and evaluate the younger players, and the skill/production some of them have shown already - I absolutely do not see that happening. Again, you're calling out people for thinking they know how Beane operates (mockingly calling them "resident Beaneologists").... then claim to know how Beane is going to operate. It's pot and kettle.