I'm really starting to love this WR room. We quietly got better

[BADOLBILZ]

37 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

 

 

Nice 

 

 

 

 

Haven't seen routines like that in such fly headwear since the 80's

 

 

 

 

Edited July 11 by BADOLBILZ

[Mikey152]

His style is definitely unorthodox...it reminds me a bit of Stevie, who also was a basketball guy. Gotta love the ball skills, tho.

 

 

Edited July 11 by Mikey152

[BillsVet]

Is he channeling Monica Seles with those grunts?

[BADOLBILZ]

8 hours ago, Mikey152 said:

His style is definitely unorthodox...it reminds me a bit of Stevie, who also was a basketball guy. Gotta love the ball skills, tho.

 

 

 

 

When he gets to the 5th break in his route........air just has to tip its hat.

[mrags]

On 7/9/2024 at 11:24 AM, Nephilim17 said:

One side of this argument is gonna be making a lot of excuses in just a few months.

It’s definitely going to be entertaining.

15 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

When he gets to the 5th break in his route........air just has to tip its hat.

Josh will have taken off running because the line broke down waiting for him to make his 13 useless cuts.  

Edited July 12 by mrags

[Augie]

16 hours ago, BillsVet said:

Is he channeling Monica Seles with those grunts?

 

He’s just setting up the DB’s. Eventually he’s gonna grunt, but keep going. They’ll never see it coming! 

[Thurman#1]

On 7/6/2024 at 8:49 AM, FireChans said:

I mean, the Bills have been 6th, 2nd, 3rd and 2nd in the last four years. Dropping to 11 would be bad with the second best QB in football. 

 

 

Not at all. Not a bit.

 

Wins and losses. That's what will be bad or good. That's what matters. How good we are at throwing and catching the ball is only a part of the puzzle.

 

You win by having a great team. Not by having the best WR group. Not by having top two or three WR production.

 

By having a great team.

 

I believe the Chiefs weren't in the top ten in WR  production last year. No 1000 yard receivers. And yet somehow I don't think they'd trade away the Lombardi for the better retroactive production from their WRs.

 

 

 

Edited July 13 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

On 7/6/2024 at 10:39 AM, Alphadawg7 said:

Call it what you want…all I know is I’m exhausted and his baby brother is due October 11th lol.  And I turn 48 next week…although my wife is 30 lol.   

 

 

Best of luck to you. Had my first well into my 50s. Exhausting, but having a great wife helps a ton. Still the best thing that's ever happened to me, that kid.

[FireChans]

8 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Not at all. Not a bit.

 

Wins and losses. That's what will be bad or good. That's what matters. How good we are at throwing and catching the ball is only a part of the puzzle.

 

You win by having a great team. Not by having the best WR group. Not by having top two or three WR production.

 

By having a great team.

 

I believe the Chiefs weren't in the top ten in WR  production last year. No 1000 yard receivers. And yet somehow I don't think they'd trade away the Lombardi for the better retroactive production from their WRs.

 

 

 

The Chiefs were so happy with their offense they went out and drafted a WR in the first and paid another former first round WR to start. 
 

Their plan wasn’t “be ***** on offense and win the SB anyway.” That was the result. That shouldn’t be our plan, either.

[Doc]

11 minutes ago, FireChans said:

The Chiefs were so happy with their offense they went out and drafted a WR in the first and paid another former first round WR to start. 
 

Their plan wasn’t “be ***** on offense and win the SB anyway.” That was the result. That shouldn’t be our plan, either.

 

The Bills drafted basically a WR in the first and paid another former 2nd rounder to start.  It's not like they did nothing.

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

The Bills drafted basically a WR in the first and paid another former 2nd rounder to start.  It's not like they did nothing.

The argument is that we are no worse than the WR’s of KC in 2023, and they won the SB despite a terrible group.
 

I haven’t seen anyone argue that our weapons in 2024 are better than theirs in 2024. You’re welcome to make that claim.

[Alphadawg7]

9 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Best of luck to you. Had my first well into my 50s. Exhausting, but having a great wife helps a ton. Still the best thing that's ever happened to me, that kid.

Thanks!!!  Yeah, it’s been quite the change, and it’s gonna change even more in October when his brother gets here, but it’s definitely the best thing to ever happen to me as well and they should only help keep me young chasing these guys around lol

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, FireChans said:

The Chiefs were so happy with their offense they went out and drafted a WR in the first and paid another former first round WR to start. 
 

Their plan wasn’t “be ***** on offense and win the SB anyway.” That was the result. That shouldn’t be our plan, either.

 

 

Um, first, duh. And second you missed the point. Two or three of them, actually. 

 

First, of course it wasn't their plan. Nobody said it was, so I don't know who you are trying to contradict there. You're not managing to contradict anyone, certainly not me. Of course it wasn't the Chiefs plan. Nor was it ours. Nor anyone's. But they were willing to cut Tyreek knowing that by far the most likely impact on the WR room was a major drop in overall quality.

 

Nobody was surprised that cutting Tyreek ended up leaving a poorer WR group. But a stronger team.

 

Again, what you want is a strong team, not a strong WR group. 

 

Second, they weren't "***** on offense," your (dumb) words. They had a pretty bad WR group and yet they finished 7th in the league in passing and 9th in total offense. So your statement there has a sense quotient of zero. They were a pretty good offense. And, you know, Lombardi trophy winners. Due to being a very good team despite a not very strong WR group.

 

It's never anybody's plan to be ***** in any area of their team. Duh. And yet nearly every team has a position group that's not that good somewhere. It's a result of circumstances and limited resources and the fact that you can't address everything you'd like to.

 

Your point that they didn't plan to be bad ... well, it's true but again, zero relevance or impact on the argument. What they showed, though, is that you can be below average at WR and particularly if you have a very good TE and a very good QB you can still be very good on offense ... and win the Super Bowl.

 

Again, you need a good team. You do NOT need a good group of wide receivers.

 

This idea that below average WRs mean a bad offense, it's wildly popular here among a certain group of people. Unfortunately, it's dumb.

 

Edited July 13 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

30 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Thanks!!!  Yeah, it’s been quite the change, and it’s gonna change even more in October when his brother gets here, but it’s definitely the best thing to ever happen to me as well and they should only help keep me young chasing these guys around lol

 

 

They keep you young, but at the same time they take years off you. It goes both ways. Still the best decision I ever made, though. Only wish I had more.

 

Giving a friend advice, I once said that anytime they ask you to pick them up, do it if it makes sense. You don't want to spoil them. But those are just the best moments. And they ask less and less as time passes.

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said:

Second, they weren't "***** on offense," your (dumb) words. They had a pretty bad WR group and yet they finished 7th in the league in passing and 9th in total offense. So your statement there has a sense quotient of zero.

They were 15th in points with the best  QB in football. Said QB had the worst YPG, TD% and INT% of his career.

 

No one though the KC offense was really good this year. If you have a post saying, “wow this Chiefs’ offense looks Super Bowl caliber,” in October/November/December, go ahead and show it. I call BS.
 

Also they traded Tyreek? They didn’t cut him…

 

Yes, you can be really bad at WR and have a disappointing offense that is borderline unacceptable with a superstar QB and still win a Super Bowl. That doesn’t make me happy that the WR group sucks.
 

You can also have your MVP QB get hurt in the middle of the season and win with the backup. The Eagles proved that as well. That wouldn’t make me happy if Josh got hurt. 

[Doc]

26 minutes ago, FireChans said:

The argument is that we are no worse than the WR’s of KC in 2023, and they won the SB despite a terrible group.
 

I haven’t seen anyone argue that our weapons in 2024 are better than theirs in 2024. You’re welcome to make that claim.

 

What is so great about the Chiefs'  weapons?  The only WR of note they have returning is Rice, who figures to be suspended for a good portion of the season.  Kelce is almost 35, coming off his lowest output in 7 seasons and since his 3rd year in the league (signs of slowing down) and now has other considerations.  Then a rookie and a guy approaching journeyman status.

 

The biggest edge they have is OC.  I'd take Reid over almost anyone in the league.  I pray Brady can approach his level.

[Thurman#1]

58 minutes ago, FireChans said:

The argument is that we are no worse than the WR’s of KC in 2023, and they won the SB despite a terrible group.
 

I haven’t seen anyone argue that our weapons in 2024 are better than theirs in 2024. You’re welcome to make that claim.

 

 

Yes, that is the argument. An unassailable argument. But again you state this poorly. They weren't terrible. They just weren't very good. They won a Super Bowl with a fairly weak WR group, making up for a ton of it by having a terrific QB and a terrific TE.

 

Both of which we appear to have.

 

As for arguing that our weapons in 2024 will be better than theirs, yeah, nobody's saying that. Not many are saying the converse for sure either.

 

Too many unknowns on both sides. That's why nobody is saying it.

 

What we know is that the year KC most recently won the Super Bowl, their WR room was pretty weak. It will likely be stronger this year. But will they win the Super Bowl? Nobody knows yet. That's why people talk more about last year than this. We know what happened

 

This coming year we don't. My guess is 65/35 the Chiefs WR room will be stronger than the Bills, and that the Chiefs don't win the SB again. But that's all guesswork.

 

Again, last year the team with the relatively weak WR group DID win the Super Bowl. 

 

Because they had a really excellent team.

 

 

[FireChans]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

What is so great about the Chiefs'  weapons?  The only WR of note they have returning is Rice, who figures to be suspended for a good portion of the season.  Kelce is almost 35, coming off his lowest output in 7 seasons and since his 3rd year in the league (signs of slowing down) and now has other considerations.  Then a rookie and a guy approaching journeyman status.

 

The biggest edge they have is OC.  I'd take Reid over almost anyone in the league.  I pray Brady can approach his level.

Rice would be #1 WR on this team in target share. I think you could argue that Brown would be too. And Kelce > Kincaid unless he gets old and falls off. 
 

So besides their top 3 weapons being better than our top 3 weapons, I don’t know what is so great about them.

[Thurman#1]

32 minutes ago, FireChans said:

They were 15th in points with the best  QB in football. Said QB had the worst YPG, TD% and INT% of his career.

 

No one though the KC offense was really good this year. If you have a post saying, “wow this Chiefs’ offense looks Super Bowl caliber,” in October/November/December, go ahead and show it. I call BS.
 

Also they traded Tyreek? They didn’t cut him…

 

Yes, you can be really bad at WR and have a disappointing offense that is borderline unacceptable with a superstar QB and still win a Super Bowl. That doesn’t make me happy that the WR group sucks.
 

You can also have your MVP QB get hurt in the middle of the season and win with the backup. The Eagles proved that as well. That wouldn’t make me happy if Josh got hurt. 

 

 

Dude, if I were to mail you a gyroscope, a GPS app and the best map available, could you find the point then? Or are you simply unwilling to try?

 

Yeah, Mahomes had relatively bad passing stats. AND THEY WON A LOMBARDI TROPHY!!! Which is more important?

 

I genuinely believe that you do not know the answer to that question. So I'll tell you. Winning the championship is the goal. Not gettiong your QB good passing stats. Talk to Mahomes, Allen, Reid, McDermott, anyone on any of these teams, and they will tell you the same thing. 

 

If you can win a championship by building up your defense and other areas at the temporary expense of your WR room ....

 

YOU DO IT!!!!

 

And the Chiefs have proved you indeed can.

 

 

 

 

You're right they traded Tyreek, my bad, but the point on Tyreek is that THEY COULD HAVE KEPT TYREEK. AND THEY DIDN'T. And they won not one but two championships in a row while he played in Miami. Because they were very fully aware that the important thing is NOT having the best WR room, it is having the best team. They traded him like we traded Diggs. They got more for him. But the point again is that they could have kept him. And if having a good WR room was the most important thing, that's what they'd have done.

 

 

15 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Rice would be #1 WR on this team in target share. I think you could argue that Brown would be too. And Kelce > Kincaid unless he gets old and falls off. 
 

So besides their top 3 weapons being better than our top 3 weapons, I don’t know what is so great about them.

 

 

Um, no.

 

That's dumb. Let me correct it for you.

 

Rice MIGHT be #1 WR on this team in target share. Certainly possible, particularly if he doesn't get a suspension or jailtime. He might even be the favorite, but that there is a guess.

 

As is the ENTIRE remainder of your post. The Bills will have a bunch of guys who have never played in this system or with this QB. Same with KC.

 

It's not clear how things will go for either team.

 

 

Edited July 13 by Thurman#1

[freddyjj]

24 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

They keep you young, but at the same time they take years off you. It goes both ways. Still the best decision I ever made, though. Only wish I had more.

 

Giving a friend advice, I once said that anytime they ask you to pick them up, do it if it makes sense. You don't want to spoil them. But those are just the best moments. And they ask less and less as time passes.

Childless men and women have an overall higher mortality than adults with children, meaning that they die earlier, recent studies show. Mothers and fathers with two biological children have the lowest mortality risks, but it increases for parents with three or more biological children.
 

From an article in Journal of Epedemiogy and Comm Health entitled “Payback time? Influence of having children on mortality in old age”