folz

Allen (WOW) Diggs (WOW---and first (of many) Bills TDs) Dodson (He ain't Tremaine, but the kid played his butt off today and was calling the defense) Daboll (2nd week, 2nd great game plan...went for the jugular late). Honorable mention to Gabriel Davis and Reggie Gilliam for their first NFL TDs.

I mentioned a few times on this board over the offseason that Murphy was a beast down the stretch last year (I told folks to rewatch the Dallas game, the Pittsburgh game, and the Houston playoff game...he had pressures, sacks, turnovers...and was always good against the run). I was surprised that people were overlooking how well he played last year. Everyone was so disappointed with his first season, and the amount that he was paid for it, that I think that sentiment just kept going even when he did start to play well. His injury from when he was with Washington was so catastrophic that even though he was able to play (sparingly) for us in his first year as a Bill, his body obviously wasn't healed yet. He was only 13-17 months removed from a major injury during that season (he tore both his ACL and MCL in that knee). At the start of last season, he was two years removed from his injury and about 1/3 of the way into the season, he finally looked like his old self. So, I think the injury just took two years to fully heal...not surprising with how bad it was. Loved this quote from Beane in that article. One that we fans should keep in mind: "It’s not all stats versus salary with us.” Full quote for context (regarding Trent Murphy): “His leadership is very important to what he brings, and there’s value in that,” Beane said. “A lot of times people get caught up in this number or the stats, but Trent does a lot of the little things and a lot of the dirty work, too. It’s not all stats versus salary with us.”

Funny post overall BritBill, but the line above was the showstopper. 😆😂

A few long-winded observations: TYLER I'm not worried about Bass. First live kicking ever in Bills Stadium, ever in an NFL game...rookie jitters. He was pushing everything a bit too far to the right (not sure how bad the wind was today), but that is easily correctable with a little coaching and having a feel for it, finally getting to do it for real. The first one looked good to me. And I'm not so sure that he would have missed the second one if they call the first one good. He missed that second one so bad, he was obviously in his head after the first one not being called good, trying to get his first NFL FG, not wanting to let down his teammates, etc. Then he righted the ship with the last two, even if they weren't straight down the middle. Also, I think the camera angle made the last one look a little more to the right than it actually was as it passed the posts, because he was angling the ball through in the direction of the camera. I did love seeing Siran Neal, a leader on Special Teams, go over to talk to Tyler after the second miss to calm him down. GAME PLAN/RUN GAME First, as others have said, the Jets strength is against the run. So, Dabol came out with a short passing game supplemented by Josh Allen designed runs. It was a great plan and worked like a charm (except for the two Josh fumbles). The run game with Singletary and Moss wasn't a major part of the gameplan. Yes, it was a little worrying that when they finally did turn to it, it was a bit anemic. But, it was a 2nd year player and a rookie (with shortened offseason and no preseason) coming in late with no feel for the game because the gameplan didn't call their numbers early on, and against a very good run front. So, again, I'm not too worried about it. The sloppiness I did see in the run game, however, was the mesh point between Josh and Zach. That looked awkward to me every time and seemed to hinder those plays. Hopefully that will improve with more play together, but I would definitely have them work on it. Tough to tell about the O-line right now. Were they bad in the run game or is the Jets front just very good? We need more evidence. And let's not forget that we were going up against a Greg Williams (of Bounty-gate fame) defense. The Jets were never in this game, but Greg had his guys hitting very hard. The win was easy, but it was a tough week 1 opponent to have because of their physicality (and the limited amount of hitting this preseason). Our wide receivers got tagged quite a bit, they all looked like they were hurting at some point. But a lot of that was because Greg started to drop 8 or 9 guys into coverage to try and stop all our receiving weapons (i.e. we were giving it to them). But when they only rushed two or three, Josh just took his time in the pocket and waited for a receiver to get open. So, Greg's first adjustment really didn't work (other than to bang up our WRs, who all got up wincing, but just kept making plays). And that is a good sign going forward, when the opponent makes adjustments and you continue to win the downs. The Jets only really slowed the Bills down when the Bills tried to turn to the rushing game to run the clock in the 2nd half. The Jets did a good job of shutting it down. But, other than that, it was only the Bills' own miscues that slowed them down on offense. And what do you need to say about this defense. Once again, 11 men working as 1. They are the epitome of team defense. Basically just gave up the one big play to Crowder. The last TD was garbage time and aided by a pass interference call. JOSH Congrats to Josh on his first 300-yard game. But, oh how he wishes he had that throw to JB in the back of the end zone back. He needs to calm down on those, redirect his hips (like James Lofton said), and hit that one every time. Also, a good reminder game for Josh about ball security (in a win where the fumbles didn't hurt us). Don't try to do too much, go down when you can, hold on to that ball. But I'm still ok with the designed runs. Josh really only exposed himself to two big hits. Yes, that is two too many, but his run ability keeps defenses honest and is a great way to run the ball against a strong front that can stop a traditional running game. But yeah, the hit he took on the second fumble was a little scary. But overall, a very good game from Josh. He really spread the ball around to his weapons (he hit 8 different receivers), they seemed to have success when he changed the plays at the line of scrimmage, his decision making was good (except maybe a couple of balls in the 4th quarter), accuracy looked pretty good (only a couple of bad throws and a couple where he could have led his receiver to more yards), and he had some big runs. If he didn't fumble the ball (twice) and hit the TD to Brown, his stat line could have been 350 yards passing, 57 yards rushing, and 6 TDS. As it was, he still had 369 yards from scrimmage and 3 TDs. Very promising for a game where everyone is trying to shake the rust off. MISC. Without the miscues (2 fumbles/missed FG/easy TD miss to JB), the Bills could have scored somewhere between 43 and 51 points in this game. Good to get those mistakes out week one. Props to Zimmer, coming up from the practice squad and having an impact on the game. Andre Roberts looked great today returning kicks, even though he didn't bust a big one. Do we have weapons now or what? 8 different receivers caught balls. With 4 players having 7+ targets each. Diggs had a quiet 86 yards, despite getting doubled for most of the game. JB: 70 and a TD. Cole for 58. Even the rook got his feet wet with two grabs on two targets. Injuries to Milano and Edmunds suck. Hopefully its not too bad for either of them. They are two studs at a position with probably the weakest depth on the team. But props to the backups who came in and held down the fort. Bojo only had one punt, but did his job with a 53-yarder and no return. Overall, very happy with the game. The Bills looked strong and prepared. Need to fix the miscues, obviously, but they are all very correctable stuff. The Jets were never a threat, even when they got the lead down to 11 points, but the Bills still need to learn to put a team away a little more cleanly (especially when they're up against better competition). Yet a win is a win, especially in week 1 against a division rival, in a stadium without fans. And this team is just going to get better with each passing week. Gonna be a fun season boys and girls (especially when the fans can come back). Let's Go Buffalo!

I liked Shaq, but Addison is an upgrade (talent/experience-wise). And I know it's popular to trash Trent Murphy, but he is actually excellent against the run and really had a good run down the stretch of last season [with multiple big plays in each of the Dallas, Pittsburgh, and Houston (playoff) games]. And A.J. Epenesa's strength is supposed to be against the run. As to your thread title, about the interior of the line, yes...we know very little right now. We will just have to wait and see. But... Ok, we lost Jordan Phillips, but he was considered a 2nd round bust until he got into our defense. Last year was the first good year of his career. And he will be replaced by 1st round pick Ed Oliver, who was starting to show signs of being a true stud down the stretch last year. And Quinton Jefferson, who yes, has mostly been in a backup role to this point in his career, but only because the guys ahead of him were studs. His old team loved him and didn't want to lose him. Everyone has talked highly of him. I think he is ready to breakout. Now, we are definitely losing some size here at this position, as Jordan was a giant, but I think the talent level may be better. Star has opted out. Big body...did the dirty work. But Harrison Phillips is back, who again I think is a better player than Star (if his knee continues to be ok) because he has more big play ability and a better pass rush (or a pass rush, as Star had none). Plus, Harrison is by no means a liability against the run. And we're not really losing much size, as Harrison is an inch taller than Star and only 8 pounds lighter. And they added Vernon Butler. He's a reclamation project, no doubt. But hopefully in his new surroundings and with our coaches and scheme/defense, he can take that next step. Yes, he is still a question mark. But, he's a former 1st round pick that hasn't panned out yet (much like Jordan Phillips, though Jordan was a 2nd rounder), and Vernon actually brings more size than Star did. Butler is two inches taller and 15 pounds bigger than Star. Plus, Butler, Addison, and Jefferson all have position flexibility. Leslie can show so many different fronts with this D-line, to match up against any situation and to confuse offenses. So, I really don't think we'll need to worry too much about the D-line. But we shall see soon enough.

Ok, I'll admit that I way overestimated how many people would be in the Bills marketing department. I work for a non-major company and our marketing department is a lot more than 3 people (could just be a difference in which jobs are considered under which department in different companies and outsourcing as someone else said). And if it truly was only three people in the department, then I also take back that the headline was inaccurate. If three people were the entire department and they are all gone, then it was the "entire" department. I just assumed it would be more than that. However, why was that not mentioned in the article (that there were only three people in the department)? As written, it does lead one to assume that it was a much bigger department and therefore, a much bigger problem. That is why the number is relevant. If two employees leave a business because they are disgruntled, eh, no big deal, happens all the time. But if it were a wave of employees leaving, then "Oh my gosh, what is going on with the Bills/PSE?" (and as KD in CA has mentioned, you can hardly count a 23-24 year old who is leaving to go back to grad school as an example of a larger issue inside the company). So, I still think the headline was sensationalized, even if technically accurate. Again, I don't know what is going on at PSE and I don't care, as long as it doesn't affect the Bills negatively. That is for the people who work there to deal with as they see fit, or to leave. I'm not defending PSE, I was more commenting on how current "news" articles are specifically given headlines to stir people up about stuff. And I think that headline was specifically written to get people to say, "Oh my gosh, the whole department walked out? I guess it really is a sh&t show over at PSE." And of course, as Bills/Sabers fans we don't want the parent company to be a mess because we don't want it to affect the teams we love (we've been through enough), but I didn't see many people defend, say, Russ Brandon, when everything happened. People will accept a fact when given enough evidence to the fact. But little hints, rumors, and speculation from reporters are not enough to accept something as fact. What facts do we have up to now? There were layoffs a while back and people were unhappy about that and now, a Vice President of marketing has stepped down. Is that enough to assume the company is so poorly run that it is ready to collapse? Also, morale is low in a lot of companies around the country due to the pandemic. Many companies have reduced their staff's wages significantly for the year, while other companies (and there are a lot of them), like PSE, who laid off a lot of people to cope with the pandemic year. Many people are still working from home, which means there is probably less communication and just more ennui in general. And morale is always low at a job when a bunch of people get laid off. Some of those people were your friends, you start to worry about your own job security, etc. But, I have not heard anything specific about why morale is low (other than the layoffs) or how many people we are talking about that have low morale. What if their "sources" are 2-3 employees. Is that enough to say it is widespread? So, why would I jump to a conclusion one way or the other (to either defend or denounce PSE)? We just don't have enough information to have an opinion on the companies internal workings...unless you or someone close to you works there. But this article, however, is definitely leading the reader to believe that there are major problems. He just doesn't back it up with enough evidence for me to accept it on good faith.

So, basically, it should have been a two sentence tweet, not an article, "Vice president of marketing Shaena Kershner resigned two weeks ago. I am looking into the reasons why." If the level of the other two employees are as you say, then they are hardly a news-worthy story. I work for a smallish company (about 500 employees). With our lower level employees, about a third progress in the company and the rest are turning over constantly (each for different reasons). Some are changing professions, following their dreams, looking for better opportunities, moving to a different part of the country, just not working out, they don't like the job, don't fit the culture of the organization, etc.

WEO...it's not that he isn't reporting fact (at least in the article itself), people are reacting to the "sensational" headline not matching the facts of the article itself. Unfortunately, that is so called news/reporting these days (i.e. click bait). it's not just Tim...it's just the sad state of most reporting these days. Now in this case, it's not that big of a deal, but in a time where people only read headlines and then get triggered by them, I do think it is a bit disengenuous to sensationalize your headlines. Tim's headline reads "Buffalo Bills' entire marketing department resigns..." When you read that headline, you think that, what, 10-30 disgruntled people walked out en masse. But, when you actually read the article, in fact, two people have resigned and maybe a third person will if his "sources" are correct. Sure, the titles of the three people seem like they were leaders in the department, but I don't know and he doesn't tell us. Tim also does not report on how many people total are in the marketing department. I mean, sure, if the department is 5 people total, then 3 people leaving is major. If the department is 20-30 people, then 3 people leaving is hardly the "entire" department. Let's say for instance that the department has 20 people (and it may be larger than that, I don't know), then 3 people leaving is 15% of the staff. That is equivalent to me writing an article about a company of 200 employees and my headline reads, "X Company's entire workforce resigns." But it turns out to be only 30 people of the 200. Thirty people leaving would be a significant story to report, but I would be misleading my readers by saying, in essence, the company has no more employees. But Tim doesn't give us those facts to assess for ourselves. Instead, he goes on to speculate how bad things must be because these employees are leaving during the pandemic. Well, what if the answer was like someone else said, that they no longer think sports is a stable place to work going into the future because of the pandemic (or a hundred other scenarios, they got hired away, they have child care issues, an ill family member, etc.). It could be for any reason. Yes, them leaving at the same time makes it seem like it could be something, an issue in the department or organization, but again there is nothing to back that up. He does not quote the former employees or anyone from inside PSE. So, how does he/we know what their reasons for leaving are? I have no idea what is happening at PSE. It may be a sh%t show and these employees really did resign because they are supremely unhappy with how the organization is run. I'm not here to defend PSE. But, there is no question that Tim's headline seems completely sensationalized (either click-bait or agenda motivated) without him providing any more information than he did in the article.

I find it interesting that we fans always assume one of our draft picks will get scooped up if waived to put on the practice squad. I have seen multiple posts saying Fromm, Bass, and Hodgins won't clear waivers if they don't make the squad. I'm not so sure. Yes, sometimes guys get scooped up, but... Fromm is a 5th round QB, without a big arm, who just had a small scandal. Bass was a 6th round pick, and if he can't beat out Hauschka, then I'm not so worried about losing him. Hodgins is a 6th round WR from an extremely deep WR class, where any team who needed a receiver got one or two or three. He was picked at 207 of a total of 255 picks. I hope he's a diamond in the rough that the Bills hit on too, but what has changed since the draft to change the opinion of the teams who passed on him 6 times each? A couple of good training camp practices? And with Fromm and Hodgins, teams would be bringing in a rookie, who doesn't know they're playbook, a week before the season starts, in an already abbreviated offseason. I'm not so sure that these guys can't make it to the practice squad. Why does everyone seem so sure that they would get scooped up?

I agree with you that other coaches are doing it as well, he's not the only good coach out there who knows how to build a good culture. And no question that the Bills PR department is always trying to pump us up and give us a positive outlook on the team. And I think McDermott does want the fans to buy in too...he won't alter his course based on our opinions, but if you have the fans behind you, that is a tremendous help. I'm just saying that with McDermott, the words don't seem like empty and baseless PR or just coach speak. I think he really believes the things he says and tries to enact them.

I agree MGK, Josh is not great yet. I guess I only meant it in regards to his humbleness. He is a great athlete, was the big man on campus at Wyoming, and a first round draft choice, but it hasn't gone to his head. But, yes, he still has a ways to go before being considered great by NFL QB standards. But, I too think and hope he can get there.

Actually there are a lot of similarities between Josh and Tre: Great players, but they are both so humble. No diva in them. Great personalities (everyone likes them). Very smart. Family guys. Jokesters. Always having fun. Physical players. A massive drive to compete and win every single play (never taking a play off). And maybe most important, wanting to be great! Some guys' goals are just to play in the NFL, make a squad, make the money, get famous, win games, win a Super Bowl. Those are all valid reasons (especially winning a Super Bowl), but the great players come in to the league wanting to be considered one of the best of all time when they're done and then work their butts off for that goal. In one version of that interview, Tre says exactly that...I want to be one of the best, one of the greats. And Tre backs that up with his talent and hard work. Love this kid and I have no doubt that the team is going to pay him to keep him. He is everything that Beane and McDermott preach about in regards to the type of DNA they want their players to have.

I don't know. I think like someone else said, catch phrases are just a lot of talk, until you back them up. McDermott doesn't just talk the talk, he walks the walk. We have all been on teams or in jobs where a boss/coach/company uses cliches or slogans, but then they don't seem to live what they preach and you end up with a lot of disgruntled people. Listening to both the Quinton Jefferson and Mario Addison interviews, both who came from good/winning cultures in Seattle and Carolina respectively, both said the Bills culture is different. It is family, it is fun, coach lets you be yourself, etc. They were careful not to put their old teams down in any way, but you could genuinely see that they meant it. They like the culture in Buffalo better. And it never seems to me that McDermott is saying things for "the masses." It is always about the players and the organization. Sean doesn't pander to the press and public like a Rex Ryan. And yes, all coaches try to build a culture, come in with slogans, etc. But how many of them can back it up, make them stick? Get everyone to buy into them? How many coaches have we seen come through Buffalo and tell us they are going to change the culture and somehow the team never fully bought in? It has a lot to do with a coach's personality and people skills (some just don't have them). It is about his words meaning something and pertaining to everyone, even himself. He and his coaches, and the FO are not above the law. They practice it too. How many times have you heard Sean talk about the "growth mindset" also being for himself. To learn to be a better coach, a better man everyday. That is living accountability, not just preaching it. Everything about McDermott is genuine. And I don't know this from anything that he says to the press, but by how the people he is leading talk, act, and perform.

I don't think Ed should have been arrested and I'm glad the charges were dropped. I think it was wrong of the NFL to force him into a program before the results of the legal proceedings were in. And this kid definitely does not need any type of babysitter, ridiculous to even suggest it. But, this does not appear to be racially motivated at all. He wasn't pulled over because he was black, he was pulled over because someone told the cops that he was driving erratically (swerving) and maybe the cops witnessed it themselves as well. And I can understand the cops being cautious of putting a possibly intoxicated driver back on the road. Maybe the breathalyzer wan't working, maybe he's on drugs, not alcohol, they could have thought. So, a major inconvenience for Ed, but not a complete miscarriage of justice. So, I don't blame the cops too much. What if he had been drunk or on drugs and went on to crash his car, injuring someone? Then people would say to the cops, you pulled him over and then let him back on the road? But, big props to Ed for handling the situation so maturely. The bone I have to pick, once again, is with the media. I watched the full interview with Ed. He spoke very openly and maturely about the situation, with really good perspective (and some good advice from Mom). Made me respect the kid even more. But here are the headlines from just the main page of TBD (so this is just the sports reporters, not even the more politically-minded news outlets): Bills' Ed Oliver says he felt 'violated' and 'guilty until proven innocent' after arrest (Buff news) When Bills’ Ed Oliver watched George Floyd’s death he thought: ‘That could have been me’ (Syracuse Post) Bills DT Ed Oliver says felt “violated” by his arrest in Houston (WIBV-TV) Bills Ed Oliver on arrest: ‘I felt I was guilty until proven innocent, not innocent until proven guilty’ (WGRZ-TV) Ed Oliver: George Floyd could have been me (WROC-TV) Ed Oliver: 'I felt like I was guilty and had to prove my innocence' (WHAM-TV) Bills' Ed Oliver says he feels violated by unwarranted arrest (ESPN) See how they pepper the headlines with "George Floyd" "Violated" "Guilty until proven innocent," making this once again a story about race (with no evidence that it had anything to do with race). Now, at least the headlines above used real quotes from Ed, even though the reporters are the ones who asked him all of the questions regarding race, to get those answers. But then there is this headline from the D&C, which is a complete and utter twisting of a quote to fit an agenda: Ed Oliver says being a Black man very well could have been why he was arrested (Roch D&C) What did Ed actually say when asked if his arrest had anything to do with him being black: “Well, I’m not sure, but to be honest in Montgomery County, they have a no-refusal law so you can’t tell them, ‘No I don’t want to go to jail,’” he said. “That’s how it was explained to me so I don’t know. Maybe so, but the law in Montgomery County, I would hope to believe that whatever color you are, you’re going to jail." How does "I'm not sure" "I don't know" "Maybe, but I would hope to believe that whatever color you are, you're going to jail" turn into "Being a Black man very well could have been why he was arrested"? Quick shout out: Cheers to writers Matt Bove and Carly Mascitti for not race baiting with their headlines! The only two on the front page of TBD. Bills DT Ed Oliver shares perspective gained following dropped DWI charges (WKBW-TV) Bills defensive tackle Ed Oliver on dropped DWI charges (WHEC-TV) Folks, we need to stop being triggered by the media and social media, stop fighting each other. It's time to sit down and talk, work together, not assume that half the country is ignorant and racist. Is there still racism today? Yes, there is. Do we need to continue calling out true racism whenever it rears its ugly head? Absolutely. But there is no systemic racism. That is a made up term that means absolutely nothing. Every time you use it, you are just saying "Everyone is a racist." Which is the furtherest thing from the truth. Think about and look into where all these current catch phrases come from. Did any of you think these up on your own, "systemic racism" "toxic masculinity" "social distancing" "the patriarchy" "the new normal" etc., etc. Take some time to think about where your words and ideas are coming from. These phrases don't just spring up from the grassroots.

I know most of this has basically already been said, but I just wanted to expand on it from my perspective: I gave up religion more than 30 years ago, but I still try to live my life by the scripture that Fromm quoted (paraphrased), "Love God with all of your heart, and treat your neighbor as yourself." If the whole world tried to do that, this would be a much better place. So, how could it be a wrong answer? He's basically saying with that, I am trying to follow that principle, which would mean I am going to try and not repeat any past bad behavior. I am going to try and love and be compassionate and sensitive to all others in the future ("try" being the key word for all of us, of course). And in fact, it is not just a Christian/Jesus thing. Not only was it the number one advice by Jesus, but it is also the golden rule for almost every culture and religion in the world. It is the one rule to rule them all: “Do not do to others what angers you if done to you by others.” ― Socrates “Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.” ― Confucius "One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires." --- Mahabharata, Anushasana Parva 113:8 from the Vedic tradition of India circa 3000 BC "That character is best that doesn't do to another what isn't good for itself" and "Don't do to others what isn't good for you." --- Zoroaster, Persia (c. 500 BC), Iː36 "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation. Go and study it." --- Hillel the Elder, as quoted in the Talmud (c. 200 CE), Shabbat 31a "None of you is a true believer unless he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." --- Muhammad, Hadith (Bukhari 1:2:12, Muslim 1:72f, and An-Nawawi 13) "Each one should do unto others as he would have others do unto him." --- Manco Cápac, Inca leader in Peru c. 1200 (Wattles 1996: 192) If Marcel was acting from a place of love and compassion (like the golden rule says to) and not from a selfish need to either get a story or to push his own ideas or beliefs onto someone else, he would have understood that this kid is probably terrified of giving an answer that sounds bad or could be misconstrued, after having had to take the heat for his previous racially-charged comments. He's young and still dealing with the fallout of his previous statements, what did MLJ expect? If Jake started talking up BLM or whatever, then people would say he's just doing it because he's trying to prove/pretend he's not a racist. Seriously, what answer would have been acceptable? Did he just want to see the kid prostrate himself? Is that what the interview was really about? Then that is totally a bad move on Marcel's side, not Jake's. Besides, actions speak louder than words...but actions take time. Anyone can say I'm sorry, I learned my lesson. We've seen hundreds of people do that and we either knew they didn't mean it at the time or their subsequent actions proved that it was just a lie said to get through a difficult moment. Let the kid learn and grow from this in his own time. I like MLJ a lot as a reporter, but I find it extremely arrogant to say that you want another person to respond a certain way or that Jake should be completely on the other side of this already and be able to respond with deep and thoughtful remarks, when he has had, what, 3 months to process it all? I hate to see people I respect, like MLJ, fall into the traps of the misguided righteousness that is so rampant these days.

Is it just me or does Tre look like he seriously bulked up this offseason (see 0:33 in the video)? I think he is about to demand the respect he deserves this year. Beast!

I was at the Cleveland game last year and one of the Browns' fans got mad at me. All I was doing was calling out guys' names who made plays. "Nice Tre," "C'mon Josh," "Yes Tremaine," etc. That kind of stuff. The guy next to me went off on me when it looked like the Bills might win the game..."I'm so sick of hearing you call out players' names!" and then he did a very agitated and bad impersonation of me. No doubt, I do see how it could be a bit annoying to hear a visiting fan constantly doing that right next to you. So, I sympathized and didn't get upset. But then his buddy, two seats over, leaned in and calmly asked me, "How the hell do you know all of their names anyhow?" I always figured that most fans (who are more than just the casual observers) knew the majority of the players on their team, but apparently not. I guess it's just another sign of Bills fans being truly die-hard. I bet if they shot that Jets video in Buffalo at any time during the drought, the vast majority of Bills fans could have named way more than 5 players.

Whose reality though? The one that the television creates?

Totally agree. But, if he didn't play conservatively in 2017, they wouldn't have even had those 9 wins for that miracle to even be a possibility. I'm just saying maybe he still wasn't completely confident in the offense last year in every situation, despite them being a far superior offense to the 2017 and 2018 versions. But, then again, maybe because of how he had to play (conservatively) with the lack of talent on the 2017 and 2018 teams, he was still a little gun shy (or in a bit of a rut) last year, and like most of you have said, he now needs to learn to loosen those reigns a bit because his players can handle it. And maybe that will partly come from him being more confident in his offense this year as well.

Yes, that was kind of my original point, not that Murphy was better than Shaq, but just that he was a lot better than people think he was or give him credit for in the second half of last year. But you bring up a good point, I did not equate snap count into the numbers I provided (though it's a bit closer than twice the amount as you guessed). Over each of their last six games (I include Denver for Shaq, but not for Murphy, since Shaq didn't play in the finale against the Jets), Murphy received 66.55% of the snaps to Shaq's 59.56% of the snaps---so Murphy got 6.5 snaps more than Shaq per each game on average, or 39 more snaps total than Shaq over their last six games. If I pro rate Shaq's stats to include 39 more snaps, then that adds to his totals as follows: .52 sacks .08 FF 2.6 tackles 1.45 QB hits Which would mean the comparison (taking an even snap count into the picture---as best I can) would be: Murphy Shaq 6 sacks 4.02 21 tackles 15 8 QB hits 11.45 2 FF 1.08 1 FR 0 So, pretty even in the pass rushing department (overall), with Murphy having an edge in tackles, and a slight edge in turnovers. But the point being that I think a lot of people seem to think that Shaq was the far superior player (and Murphy sucks), but the team got pretty much the same production out of each guy. There was not a drop-off when Murphy was in the game down the stretch.

I will agree that there were some moments that I wish they had gone for the jugular last year. But, you also have to take into account the offense itself and McD's confidence in them connecting on certain plays or down and distance. For instance, in 2017, we would have never made the playoffs if he let that offense wing it. Relying on his defense and playing conservatively on offense is actually what got that team to the post season. And even last year, we were much better, but the offense still struggled mightily in some games. It is kind of like having a kicker that you know is money from inside 45, but struggles over that. Well, if it's fourth down and a FG try would be from 51, you probably go for it on fourth rather than try the FG because you are not confident in your kicker. Hopefully this year the offense will take off and McD will have the confidence in them to sling it around, go for it, and not play too conservatively. But outside of maybe one or two games, I think he has managed games pretty well in that regard thus far.

I think most people would agree that Shaq has outplayed Murphy over the last two years overall. But, if we are talking unpopular takes, I think the following is more unpopular: I wonder if maybe it took until midseason of last year for Murphy to get fully healthy. Yes, I know that's 2 full years, and some guys can get back from an ACL in like 8 months. But, Murphy not only had a Grade 3 ACL tear (where it tore completely in half), but he also tore his MCL at the same time. His game really started to pickup around week 6 last year. And in his last six games of the season (including the playoff game), Murphy had 6 sacks, 21 tackles, 8 QB hits, 2 forced fumbles, 1 fumble recovery. For comparison, Shaq had 3.5 sacks, 12 tackles, 10 QB hits, 1 forced fumble, over the same six games. Edge to Murphy over that most recent span. Murphy was actually a beast in the Dallas game, the Pittsburgh game, and the Houston playoff game. Go back and watch the highlights. It was only the last 4 games he did not have a sack (not 8). And yes, 3 of his sacks came against Arizona and 1.5 against Washington. But look at any pass rusher. First, sacks usually come in bunches, and secondly, every great pass rusher feasts on weaker competition (Bruce did it all the time...4-6 sacks per season came in the two games against the lowly Jets). Another for instance, T.J. Watt had 6.5 of his sacks against Cinncinati, Miami, and Cleveland last year. Shaquil Barrett, the sack leader last year got 4 of his sacks against the Giants, 3 against Carolina, 2 against JAX (plus 1 each against Arizona and Detroit). That's 11 of his sacks against "weaker" competition. You could pretty much make that claim about almost any pass rusher. It is kind of par for the course. Now, if Addison wasn't feasting on weaker competition, then I'd be worried.

Also, I wouldn't underestimate what he meant from a leadership standpoint in the TE room last year for the young guys (kind of like Gore in the RB room). His contributions off the field may have been more important that his contributions on the field (though as you said, he is still a solid player/blocker, if he could just cut back on the penalties). But maybe the young guys are ready to step up and the leadership aspect of Smith's value won't be as high this year.

Unless there is a significant drop-off, which I don't think there will be this year at least, or he is not getting the same number of snaps as he did in Carolina, then I expect him to do what he has done for the last 4 years (averaged below). He has been amazingly consistent over that span: 9.75 sacks 35 tackles 14 Qb hits 2 forced fumbles

Honestly, I wouldn't trade Josh for any QB in the league right now. I'm not positive he will be a superstar yet, but I feel good enough about him that I want to see it play out. Josh is the perfect QB for Buffalo and this team. I'd rather see our guy blossom, than trade the farm for a different QB. I realize that some of you don't agree with that because you don't think Josh will ever blossom. And while I can understand people not being 100% sold yet, and wanting to see more first, those who are so positive that Josh sucks and always will, well I think you are delusional, and I really wonder what games you were watching last season. And not wanting to trade Josh is not a knock on Mahomes or Watson or Murray or Jackson or anyone else. You can like many QBs and think some or all will be good. Just because you think one will be good doesn't mean another won't be. It's an exciting time for the league with a lot of young QBs who look like they are going to develop into either solid or even franchise QBs (Mahomes already has, obviously). But, whenever these discussions come up, I feel like many (on both sides) are just arguing in a vacuum. To really compare two QBs, like Dak and Josh, you can't just look at win/loss record or a handful of stats. You also have to look at the context. How good an offensive line do they have? How much does the defense help out? Who was more polished/experienced coming into the league? Who's coaching them? What kind of weapons do they have? How good was the overall team that the QB is stepping in to? Who's on your schedule (how many good or bad defenses)? etc., etc. For instance, to compare Dak and Josh's 2018 season, you can't just say Dallas had more wins and Dak had better stats, so he is obviously the better QB. Well, Dak was in his third year, with two full seasons of NFL experience behind him. Josh was a rookie. Dak had one of the best Olines in the league, where Josh's Oline was so pathetic that it had to be completely rebuilt the next year. Dallas was a more veteran team, the Bills were young and had UDFAs starting because of a lack of salary cap. Dak's top two targets were Amari Cooper and Cole Beasley. Josh's top targets were Zay Jones and Robert Foster. Defense was about even (Yards given up: Bills 2nd , Dallas 6th; points allowed Dallas 6th, Bills 18th; Turnovers: Bills 9th, Dallas 19th). Context matters. Having said that, I'm not so sure that Dak is definitely better than Josh right now. But even if he is, Josh has way more upside and is cheap for the next 3 years, so why in God's name would anyone suggest giving up draft picks and paying a monster contract to a guy who at best is a little better than your current QB, but with a lower ceiling? Idiotic (and I assume click bait) post by the "reporter" who put it out there.