BillsVet

I had no issue with Romo before CBS told him to stop talking deep football observations and focus on happy-talk because that's what most fans can understand.

Being better than Daboll and Dorsey is a pretty low bar to set, particularly with an improved Josh Allen in 2024-25 versus 2020-23. As an aside, Brady keeps designing runs for Josh which McD essentially ended for Dorsey in the first half of 2023. Been back in their playbook since then, but I digress. The philosophy is what it is and that calls for synching the offensive and defensive schemes closely together. No one opposes the concept on offense of wanting to keep the ball, physically punish the opposing defense, having an offense which doesn't turn it over, keeps a run-pass balance, passes to max YAC/RAC, etc. This paired with a defense which gets turnovers, can put pressure on the QB, and forces throws into that zone is all good.... But it's still a low margin for error philosophy no matter who the OC is and what he calls. Particularly when the receivers are meh and struggle to get open. Requires Josh to do more, put himself in the line of fire running it, and is so-so against better competition particularly in the playoffs, as we've seen the last 2 years. Brady has schemed the offense McD wants and Beane staffed. It is what it is.

Works well against teams with inferior QBs like the Jets. As evidenced by the Division or Championship Game level, not so much unless Josh dials it up like he did in Week 1 versus Baltimore or against KC in the 13 seconds game. Larger point is, playing this style is about keeping defense off the field, as healthy as possible, beating up an opponents' defense, and maintaining possession. When it works, it's good. When it doesn't (because the enemy always has a say) then the offense has to score a lot of points.

Beane's re-signing all 5 guys not named Josh this off-season at or nearing the decision to extend would have surprised me a couple years ago, but not now. Seems like that have an organizational goal of not having players who push back on leadership. It's why I think they caved a little on Cook because he was becoming a distraction and McBeane obviously want to avoid that. The Shakir extension seemed off as well...he's an injury waiting to happen with how he plays. By my count, Buffalo re-signed 17 of the 22 drafted players taken in the 2017-2022 drafts who were at or within 1 year of an extension. To me, it appears that contract extensions are given by OBD based less on positional value, injury risk probability, etc. and more about loyalty.

Well, if that defense is largely healthy and it's still yielding 40 points to higher-caliber teams then their off-season was a miss...again. But we got a long way to go. Still, it wouldn't be the first time that their off-season changes were insufficient. And that should prompt people to ask whether what HC and GM believe in can work. Especially with this QB and how he is still getting better after an MVP season.

When you continually revamp defensive personnel and that unit falters in critical moments, then their governing philosophy is up for criticism. More now than any other season based on significant DL and a fair amount of secondary investment. This while wanting a run-pass balance to wear teams down on offense. There's little margin for error, and when it doesn't work then they need hero ball from Josh. He's mostly been up to the task, but when his low-moderate receiving talent aren't you get the AFC CG last year. Or, the Week 1 game against Baltimore.

That may be. Still doesn't remove the larger point that this season is a referendum on the HC, GM, and their philosophy on how to win.

I compare this more to Rex's schemes in New York effectivity around 2009-10. Those were more complicated to run, but needed the exact right players who had the smarts and physical ability. I think we're trending closer to that in Buffalo, except I don't see that McD's defensive scheme as so complex. Still needs a certain kind of player, which he found in 2017 for the secondary. Huge win or not on Sunday night, we're still debating the philosophy the HC and GM operate under. As in, whether a highly-resourced defense, particularly at DL combined with an offense featuring Josh, a very good OL, and an average-ish skilled talent group can win a SB. Buffalo's 2025 will answer that question.

Nah, you're listening to your mom yelling to you in the basement that the meatloaf is ready.

Some of you are insufferable and the season hasn't even started yet. Saturday Night Live addressed you back in the 80s before some of you were even born: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUL7q8eyig8

Those vets are largely washed up and if their presence is to push the younger players it's not a good thing. I'll agree the 2025 WRs to start the season are better than those to start 2024. But it's a low bar...especially after the 2024 group's inability to get open almost got Josh KO'd in the Baltimore game. We're talking world record limbo bar low. Too many if's, hopefully's, and maybe's heading into the season that, once again, people are banking on Josh to raise their production.

You may be the only one who defends their pukes like a man. Good for you. Every WR on that roster is a limited option. Cooper may be shot...but after seeing Buffalo bring back Phillips, Poyer, and Gabe Davis back in short succession it's not surprising they'd call back a guy who they liked last year. The WR group is a hodge-podge of underwhelming. No one is opening things up for anyone. Not Palmer and not Coleman at this point in his career despite the hype-machine in full force this off-season.

And Beane will be in touch by about Week 6 when he needs a WR...again.

Agree HD. Much of this thread can be summarized as a debate between 2 types of people. Those who reason through moral, ethical and legal considerations to these streams and those who are limited to: I like football because it makes me happy. What makes me happy is good. I deserve good things. Good things should not cost money. Greedy people charge money for football. Therefore I am entitled to free football because it is good, makes me happy, and bad people are bad.

A civil society without commonly held values trends toward legalism in outlining ethical standards. And legalism alone won't hold together long enough when debates like this surface. In this case, just saying that these NFL game streams is wrong because the law says so can get into the mud like it is here. And that's because the issue of taking a product for free isn't considered along any moral lines by a larger cross-section of people. We're so fragmented on that it's never going anywhere, so we go back to the legalist framework which inevitably leads to people trying to justify something or make a case that it's not legal.