Re: SEEMS LIKE A "MANAGEMENT" ISSUE
 

Injuries galore.

Side note, I see Tredavious White season is over for the Bills. Torn ACL.

Football is a grind.

Re: SEEMS LIKE A "MANAGEMENT" ISSUE
 

I love it when our offense scores almost nothing and the the defense is attacked after a loss. I got it when our GOAT QB was in town and not producing (as he did at times). Sentiment, I get it. I just don't get it now when our O scores at total of 6. 6 pts! Loses 3 (or was it 4?) 4th down attempts, gives up an INT....really, do I need to go on? Sure the D wasn't perfect, but should they have to be?

Re: SEEMS LIKE A "MANAGEMENT" ISSUE
 

We were lucky to get the 6 points we did. That was basically a gentlemen's shutout.

Re: SEEMS LIKE A "MANAGEMENT" ISSUE
 

Would you rather have them pinching pennies while we were in a win now scenario with a Qb who could take us to the Super Bowl? Had he not gone all in it likely we don’t win the division 4 years running. We had a legitimate shot up until last year to win it all, it just didn’t work out. It happens, Super Bowls are hard to win but I would rather be in the position to win one and Loomis was a huge part of that. At some point you are going to have some down years, it was bound to happen. The Pats went through it last year and now it’s our turn.
To think this was gonna be a seamless transition is short sighted.

Re: SEEMS LIKE A "MANAGEMENT" ISSUE
 

Are you sure you read my points dude?

Re: SEEMS LIKE A "MANAGEMENT" ISSUE
 

Certain players are more susceptible to injury due to past history, style of play, body type, age, or outsized role on the offense. We have an affinity for drafting, acquiring, and committing to such players. Peat and Armstead are two. Hill with his age, college injury history, and style of play was also a high risk. Kamara is at an inherently high risk due to his position and style of play and it is a known risk to commit big dollars to one player at RB position. Thomas and Ramcyzk are bad luck though Thomas’ attitude is an issue. With Thomas my issue is that most elite WRs have been unable to win championship, and it could be that investing heavily in that position actually inhibits QBs learning to spread the ball, though Mike Evans last year was an exception perhaps due to Bradys 20yr experience spreading the ball. Another factor I think is that although its great we find value in the draft from small school and underutilized players, sometimes you know less about those players durability, so you get Davenports and Armsteads who are very talented but didnt prove they could stay health against opponents their own size in college and have not proven it in the pros. Overall I think we are partly to blame for our injury issues by taking a lot of risk in the roster we assembled and going with upside or loyalty over durability and high dollar stars at questionable positions over depth.

Re: SEEMS LIKE A "MANAGEMENT" ISSUE
 

I was fine with the win now philsophy when we had brees, though its questionable how spending big on a raw prospect in Davenport and expensive backup qbs fit with winning now under brees. But now brees is gone and we cant stay in win now mode or eventually 100% of our cap will be dead money and we will need 53 players on minimum contracts. We need to clear the cap. Giving $23 million guaranteed to a 31 year old qb coming off a foot injury and concussion with limited qb skills hoping he can run us out of our no WR issue is not a good way to clear the cap, its a desperate hopeless attempt to continue the win now philosophy until ever last dollar is spent even if we have to stay in cap hell for a decade. We need to face reality and not double down on desperate risks. Locking up Hill leaves us no cash to bite the bullet and cut Peat or Thomas. Its a domino of impending cap hell. And even if everything goes right, we cant win now with no WRs, so we should not be mortgaging the future to do so.

Re: SEEMS LIKE A "MANAGEMENT" ISSUE
 

Take a look at Hill's contract after details are released. Numbers mean nothing. It's all in the structure and the incentives.

Re: SEEMS LIKE A "MANAGEMENT" ISSUE
 

I don’t think anyone is saying they have to be perfect, at least not me. I was just making observations on the game. They showed up far more so than the O did. If the O had matched the D’s play it’s a close game they likely pull out. They are not a dominant defense however. I don’t think that’s an attack. They have been very good at times this season. But they had letdowns in the Atl and Giants games. Just my 2 cents worth.

Re: SEEMS LIKE A "MANAGEMENT" ISSUE
 

It has been reported to be $23 million guaranteed. So lets say Hill is concussed, hurt, or ineffective this season, which I think is likely, the cost is a minimum of $23 million for as little as one game. Except really i think that is low, because our team could not take a $23 million cap hit. So if Hill is concussed next game and medically retired we likely keep him on roster a year or two to stretch out the cap hit, which many will praise as Loomis’ smart cap wizardry, and pay $30-35 million for that one game. Its always smart for us to keep players because we always backload tons of guaranteed money on inconsistent injury prone players so we cant cut them when they underperform so we dont have to admit they underperformed and can call retaining them smart.