WhitewalkerInPhilly

Ooooof. Yeah. That's not a sustainable number. Let's see what numbers Hughes has been hearing.

Jesus. I mean I know it was not final, but talk about burning bridges.

A) My point was that "yes, the Bills go get something this year if they cut Star, and even if it's not much the benefit would be felt at a time we really need it. It's not as if they take a salary cap loss" and B) A post June 1st cut only frees up the money after that date, so it will bear no impact on this free agency spree

I don't understand, we don't get much for cutting Star this year, but that would offer a major dead cap rollover for 2023 when Josh's cap hit goes through the roof

They must be looking to add someone else

I mean that would explain McKissic

Damn those numbers look just right. I'm in.

I'd honestly just cut him and draft a rookie. But oh well

My only worry about restructuring him was injury history because he has played at an above average level. we still have room to cut him next year, I think this is smart cap management by Beane

It was too much for a journeyman guard. Cover 1 did a special where they forecasted a request for a pay cut. Once you make that offer and they turn it down you pretty much have to cut the guy.

Ok people. I can't believe we are hearing people quibble about hiring a depth piece who has some value on special teams. If, God forbid, we lose Diggs to injury our current passing targets are Davis, Knox and Beasley (who is shopping for a trade) JK is not my first choice for a WR. But right now he looks like our fifth best passing target in a passing league. I expect that to change in the draft but let's not create a need that we need to reach on.

Wooooow that is a loss considering what Indy have up to get him. I have no idea what they are going to do. I'm not ruling out that the Commies draft in the first round either

I would be all for it. He was never a fantastic pass rusher but he excelled at run contain. I would rather him than Addison and would give us a veteran voice if we want a youth movement at DE.

I'm assuming Beane is playing hardball on Beasley's contract. Beasley has been getting disgruntled through last year and unless he redoes his deal that's cap space we need. My money is on the idea that Beane wants to have Beasley test his market value. If there are no takers, or only a late round pick, Beasley knows his market. If someone goes out and drops serious draft capital that frees up cap space, all the better.

Ahh you are one of those delusional ones who can't grasp that firing a corrupt prosecutor would have made it more likely for Burisma to be caught for doing something wrong. And even if it hypothetically did (which any objective analysis has debunked) it would have bore no relation on how likely Ukraine would be invaded. You're grasping desperately for some "whataboutism" when one side is so clearly in the wrong. Btw Being in Florida didn't stop Trump from calling into Fox News to compliment Putin.

Hey remember when the President of the United States held up military aid to Ukraine so that they would be pressured to announce an investigation into his political competitors? And it was just brushed off by his supporters? This was the situation that threat was leveraged against. The idea that without US aid, Ukraine would be overrun by Russia. Anyone who stood by while that happened that has no business caring about Ukraine now. Especially when they choose to roll out culture war nonsense in response to a threat their messiah enabled and continues to enable.

Or HUAC

I'd feel worse about spending money on a special teamer if the cupboard wasn't completely bare in terms of DB depth behind our starters. I never want Neal to start a game, but I can certainly think of worse things that signing a guy who you've brought up through your system as a known quantity at what appears to be a very reasonable veteran depth deal. I feel better about this than I do Mario Addison or AJ Klein.

It made sense to debate a trade at the time. Now, with the emergence of Dawson Knox, it's throwing money at an aging asset. Assuming things hold I see a lot of Diggs, Davis, Beasley, Knox and Singletsry as our base set.

My only difference is a stud DT-1 if we are lucky to see one fall to us Bluntly, I really think that the Bills need to fortify both guard positions, and with the players we want to retain I really think the best chance will be a few cheap journeyman and the draft. It's not what I want, getting to spend 1st round picks or shelling out for guards is a luxury we don't typically get.

Wow. The Bills were better than both these teams.

Honestly I'm thrilled. While I think Dorsey was the best man for the job, I was worried about how to install the run game. We clearly saw that adding just a touch more of it made the offense go. Sean McVeigh has been called many things, but vanilla on offense has never been one. If Kromer was heading up their O-line and run game I have confidence that when we run, we will run effectively.

Hahahaha no. I know we are a little hard on him on this board and a little quick to replace, but there is no way that we are going to shell out that kind of dough. I would much rather just draft a guy and let Dane Jackson fight it out.

I want him back, but I don't see a reason why we should not take a mid round flier on another TE. I don't know how much truth there is to the idea that we might cut Beasley as a cap casualty, but I simply do not see Sanders as a luxury we can afford and I would rather see Davis take his snaps. But that might mean a reduction in spread sets. Running 2 TE formations would also help the O-line which, let's face it, needs that help.

I think best justification for the rule is in what we've seen in the "follow the leader" approach to hiring coaches. Sean McVeigh took on a team that had gotten first round draft picks year after year and did nothing under Jeff Fisher and even now needed to mortgage the future to get to the big dance dance again. And yet, everyone who shared a cup of coffee with the guy has suddenly been a hot candidate. Owners bring in GMs from successful organizations. These GMs know they are on the hot seat and without any prodding will look for the same model from where they left (see Schoen and Daboll), which is fine...but it keeps people looking for the same surface similarities and what they are comfortable with. They might not see a something new until they are forced to which is the idea behind the rule. Does it work in actuality? Can it work? Those are different questions than "should it be attempted?"