Thurman#1

"It would be right on brand" for him to be injured in a basketball game despite a complete lack of reports of him being injured off the football field, that I can find. And he's "a bit of a space cadet." To quote Sesame Street, "one of these things is not like the others." You didn't back that up well.

Well, yeah, but that doesn't show what you think it does. Yeah, the Pats won 11 that year. And 16 the year before. Five less games under Cassel. Brady did get hurt. But the Pats also played a historically easy schedule that year under Cassel. Our division was up against the easiest slates ever, including our own division, as the Bills and Jets who were awful. So easy that the Fins, who had gone 1-15 the year before won 11 games that year and the next year went back down to 7-9. Yes, just a day or two ago.

Nah. That's silly. Objectivity has nothing to do with it. It's guesswork. And pessimistic guesswork at that. The statisticians and analysts have said that a great QB is worth roughly five games beyond replacement value, much higher than a great player at any other position.

I would say no. 'Bout the same. The fact we have different guesses shows what? Is evidence of what?

I did make two mistakes above, which I owned up to. You haven't successfully pointed out one since then, though. Again, your argument is about money. How the Bills acquired the guy - whether they paid a draft pick for him - doesn't affect how much the Bills paid. They brought on board contracts they wanted. How they got those contracts is immaterial to arguments over money. How much money they had to pay, that's what mattered. "He wouldn't have gotten a salary of $1M in FA," you say? I see, you've talked to his agent, then, and Cooper himself? I'm sure that must have been quite a talk, you should tell us all about it. The fact is that some FAs get paid far less than they deserve in various situations: Feeling they can prove something in the short time with the new team, or the terms of the original contract mean that the player won't get any more total money with a new large contract than a new small one, for two. The key to the Bills accepting Cooper's money situation wasn't that he was traded rather than being acquired in FA. It was how much money they could get him for. Your argument is a financial one, how much money the Bills should spend on certain positions. Again, we brought in Diggs in a trade. And it was a great move. Re-signing him proved to be a bad one. But spending the money on him in the first place was brilliant. You keep wanting to ignore the wildly productive part of the Diggs story while using the bad part as one of your main bricks. It doesn't work that way in fair arguments. He was here for four years, not one. You're trying to finesse inconvenient facts away. You're arguing that those aren't part of your argument about money, because the McBeane contracts are a bit older or the Bills sent a draft pick to the other team, which means we can ignore that financial move and only talk about the stuff that confirms what you want to say. We get it. But it's not a strong argument. I know. But let's not talk about our outstanding continuous offensive success. Let's talk instead about how cheapness is killing our offense and a lack of skill players at WR and RB is ... is, um ... is a clear failure for this brain trust. Offensive success schmoffensive success.

Um, no. Me: "Cooper indeed wasn't a free agent. Which has nothing to do with how much he was paid and which team acquired him. We got him. Cheap. Other teams didn't. We did." You: "Cooper being traded for at his existing salary, which was less than $1M instead of being a free agent signing had EVERYTHING to do with how much he was paid by the Bills." Yeah, as a careful reader will immediately note, that's you missing my point. I said him not being a free agent had nothing to do with how much he was paid. Trade or FA, you acquire a guy with a salary of less than $1M and that's all that matters to your argument, not that we had to trade something away to get him. You misunderstand and argue that the salary he was paid affected ... what, um, the salary he was paid? Yeah, um, DUH!! Redundant and unresponsive much? You were trying to legislate out trades, because they didn't fit your narrative. Not all trades by the way, just the ones you found inconvenient to your argument. We can apparently talk about Diggs, according to you, but not Cooper, because he's not convenient for the thrust of your argument. So then I point out that your argument is about money, not about whether the Bills traded something away to acquire the contract. You skip right past that and pretend ... I guess your argument was that "his existing salary ... had EVERYTHING to do with how much he was paid by the Bills," apparently trying to assume that I didn't know that his salary equalled his salary? Yeah, I was pretty aware of that. I can't imagine anyone not being aware of it. The Bills strategy since they got here has been pretty consistent. Go after WRs you don't have to pay massively for, not the massive splash types. Trades, FA, whatever, don't swing for the fences financially for WRs. And even more so with RBs. Use TEs and RBs to try to fill in the pass game. And again, they have had tremendous offensive success with this approach.

So you argue that we don't have difference makers ... and yet we've been a terrific offense year after year. Being a great offense is the goal of the offense, and we're achieving it. Where's the problem there? We were an excellent offense with Singletary before Cook. There's a lot of different ways to be excellent. I'm with Barley in that I think we do know what the Bills under Beane will do about investing in an RB if the RB (decision maker or not) insists on $15M AAV. That could be wrong, certainly, but it doesn't appear so. We'll see.

Good points, all. That second paragraph is the part that the "pay him $15M AAV" crowd wants to forget. I too think you know Beane's most likely answer.

You'd like to see some evidence that overpays at WR are equivalent? I'd like to see some evidence that they aren't. And there really isn't such a thing, either way, since overpaying is based on opinion. You clearly think WRs are paid too much, so you see overpays everywhere at that position. Your perception isn't something that can be proved. It could maybe be somewhat supported with massive amounts of contract examination. But you'd still be saying that this guy is an overpay in many many cases where someone fair-minded could disagree. "The NFL has changed a bit since [2019]," you say? Exactly correct. "A bit." The NFL changes every year. But a bit of inflation here and there and a re-shuffle in which positions are paid a bit more is NOT some kind of earth-shaking paradigm shift. It's what happens in football all the time. Pretending that 2019 was the stone ages and the Paleolithic era of six years ago shouldn't count is just nonsense. Beas and Brown are much the same type of mid-level contracts the Bills have mostly given receivers, frustrating those who want to see them bring in higher-paid guys. As Shaw pointed out, this appears to be what the Bills want to do. And their offense has been terrific, consistently. Cooper indeed wasn't a free agent. Which has nothing to do with how much he was paid and which team acquired him. We got him. Cheap. Other teams didn't. We did. And you know it. You used Diggs as evidence for your side. He was also acquired by trade. And it was indeed worth every penny to take his salary on board. What, only trades that show what you want them to show count, but the ones that don't fit your narrative somehow don't count? Sorry, I somehow had the idea they'd renegotiated Diggs right after the Vikings trade. Fact is, though, that acquiring his reasonably expensive contract was a terrific move. The renegotiation (also not free agency, shouldn't count if only free agency is involved) in 2022 was a failure. But getting him in here in 2020 and paying that contract was a tremendous success. For a tremendous offense.

Well, if that's the point it's a bit off target. The reason WRs are paid more is that they're more valuable to the team. It's that simple. More, while there are overpays at WR, there are also underpays and values that are right on target. Overpays hurt regardless of position. You claimed that Harty was an overpay. Fair enough. That Harty contract hurt more than the Bears got hurt overpaying for Tremaine Edmunds because Harty is a WR and Edmunds isn't? Nonsense. Each contract will hurt more or less based on a ton of factors, including performance, injuries, team fit, contract specifics and on and on and on. Position isn't particularly one of those factors. The Bills have gotten plenty of good values at WR as well, John Brown, Manny Sanders, Cole Beasley, Mack Hollins, Amari Cooper and on and on. Diggs' 2022 extension was worth every penny. And the success of the Bills offense, and team, speaks for itself on how well these tactics have worked.

Ah, I see. Fair enough. My bad. But again, maybe it's shorthand, but you're consistently referring to guys by their production alone even as you say you're not judging them that way. As Shaw pointed out, (in the two posts of this thread so far), the Bills are looking at how guys will fit our situation and what we want out of this offense. Also, you pointed out, what seven or eight WR overpays above. Without going into the specifics of those or other contracts, over the same four or five years there are plenty of WR underpays and plenty of WRs who were well-valued. You'll fine that at any position, the old bell curve.

You say you're not relying on yards alone. Then when describing Palmer, that's precisely what you do, that and nothing else. "A guy with back to back 400 yard seasons. That's Josh Palmer production." And nothing else. With only 61 and 65 targets, and on 75% and 65% of snaps there's an extremely good argument that they left a lot of his potential unused. That could be wrong or it could be right, nobody knows. But it probably speaks less to the market than it does the Bills (and possibly other teams as well) evaluation of Palmer specifically. You're judging him - based directly on your own post - on past yards alone. Clearly the Bills are not. Again, doesn't mean this contract will look good down the line. That'll have to be seen.

The receiver last year with the 32nd highest productivity (Pickens) got 900 yards in receiving while burning only 103 targets, leaving all the rest of the team's offensive snaps available for other players to be productive in. The RB last year with the 32nd highest productivity (Tyler Allgeier) put up 644 yards, but required 137 attempts to do so, leaving fewer snaps available for others while producing less. I'm not bothering to include pass stats for RBs there, or run yards for WRs. With unlimited time, I'd have done so, but I don't believe that would change the picture all that much. Some, but not all that much. WRs also more directly make life easier for the QB in getting the ball out of his hands on plays when he's back there facing a rush pointed at him. And in the modern NFL, making life easier for your $50M QB is the name of the game. RBs also make life easier for QBs, of course. So does everyone on the team, certainly including the defense. But WRs do it more directly. RBs change the defense's moves formations and reactions and priorities, and that's valuable, but not as valuable. How do we know that? Look at what the league pays each position. You're right that receivers have become more expensive. In the NFL's opinion, there's good reason for that.

Which is why snaps/dollars is a part of the argument, not all of it. Touches/production is also part of it. RBs produce far less per touch. So is average length of productive career life, particularly when you're talking about longer contracts for players with shorter expected productivity. So is width of skillset. Cook's inability to pass block hurts him, but not Saquon, who's a bully when protecting his QB. There are more factors involved. You know all this very well. Another good reason why you can't reasonably compare contracts between RBs and WRs, or any other positions, really.

Right. That's why you can't compare RB and WR salaries and doing so will only confuse any issue you're looking at. RBs are considered to be worth less. That's why they're paid less. Gabe was not paid more than Saquon. But yes, more than most RBs. Doesn't mean it was a good contract, obviously that Jax gave to Gabe. Might've looked a lot more reasonable if he hadn't been injured, but we'll never know. But the league finds RBs more fungible than WRs. With a few Saquon-like exceptions. Overall this seems pretty reasonable to most. Paying a guy at a more fungible position more than the league thinks he's worth does not seem like a way to get a competitive advantage. Not all zigging where they zag is good decision-making.

Hah!!! I like that proviso a lot!! Smart.

So, we don't want to follow the pack? Instead, we want to pay more than we have to? Yeah, when it comes to contracts, going out of your way to not follow the pack by overpaying? Count me out. I get you're playing around some here. The last sentence shows that. Not clear exactly what you're trying to say about receivers there. But you seem to be somewhat serious about overpaying being a good strategy because it's zigging when they're zagging. Me? No, thanks. This. He's right that the values are changing. It's likely that's due to the effect of analytics and smarter decision-making. As Matt_in_NH pointed out, analytics tends to show that RBs have shorter shelf lives. And fewer snaps than WRs. And a lot more production in terms of yards and TDs per touch. If we pay Cook around $11M or so, we'd be making him the 7th highest paid in AAV. 7th? That's about right, I think. Second contracts often rank a guy higher than his actual value. But not contracts given a year early, generally. The player has to give up a bit for the early payday. And early paydays are even more valuable to RBs than most positions. I think you're right that this is market efficiency we're seeing.

He has been a great draft pick. I don't think too many would argue. Worth $15M? Pay him what he wants? Yeah, no thanks. Not unless he plays a whole lot better this year anyway. Well, yeah, 4.9 is very good for a career average. James hasn't been through a career yet. In career stats, things generally go down very significantly indeed by the end. 6th in yards from scrimmage in 2023? Yup. About 27th in yards from scrimmage in 2024? Yup. Not even in the top 100 in 2002? Yeah. And yeah people mention the OL when they talk about Cook. We've got a damn good OL. They mention the OL when they talk about Allen too. For good reason in both cases. Cook will be here this year, as has been very obvious all along. Next year? Yeah, assuming he's gone, which I do, they'll bring in someone else, in the draft or as an FA, or both. And likely Davis will improve after his very good rookie year. Again, I like him. If he'd sign for around $10 to $11M a year, I'd be very much in favor of bringing him back. Doesn't appear he will, though. Give him, say $11M AAV and he'd be 7th highest in the league, behind Barkley, McCaffrey, Henry, Taylor, Kamara and Jacobs. IMO he does belong behind those guys, with the possible exception of post-injuries McCaffrey. That's about where he belongs, I say. Klos, I don't think many are dismissing it. We're contextualizing it. That's different. And reasonable. Again, two rushing TDs his first year, two his second year and sixteen his third and many are saying he's a 16 a year guy. He's not. He's a 16 in 2024 guy.

Um, I think many have effectively said this. When you say that we have to get Cook back because he's really good, you're saying that price shouldn't be a factor. My argument here points out what should be obvious but is being ignored by an awful lot of people and posts here that walk around with their fingers in their ears saying "Not listening," when you try to mention price. Many many many posts on here are trying to pretend that this is a yes/no argument, that yes we need to keep him no matter what, period. This proves that there absolutely is a point at which he would not be worth it. Many want to ignore this because it's convenient to their narrative. There is absolutely a point at which we'd be paying too much. And frankly $15M is past that line for most on here, which is why money doesn't get mentioned in many of these posts that say, "Just get him."

I'm not reducing James Cook to just the touchdowns. Answering every single argument made in one post isn't practical. So I'm responding to one that is constently made, that we can't live without him because he had 16 TDs, which shows he's one of the absolute best in the league, and that we can't just throw away those 16 TDs next year. 4.9 YPC is darn good, 7th best among RBs with 100 carries or more, and 8.1 YPR is 17th among RBs. Both good. Neither worth $15M or particularly close. You're putting words into my mouth. I didn't say any fast RB could do what he did. Speed is a lot of his value, but certainly not all. But in those 16 TDs, other than the three or four long ones where his speed was mostly what resulted in those TDs, and the short one that I mentioned where he just beautifully bounced off a head-on hit, I do in fact think most of the rest were TDs even if the RB were a JAG. None of them required brilliant work. They required work at the level that most NFL starters are at. Disagree if you like, but that's what that video showed, in my opinion. Really well-executed NFL plays. Three or so where nobody was there on defense and the rest requiring workmanlike performance by the back.

Yeah, me too. Rasul over all three of these guys. But maybe not by a whole ton.

Even in this case, if I'm a player and everyone else in the league doesn't have to deal with that clause, but I'm expected to, I'm not signing. It doesn't happen often, but people are convicted unfairly. I wouldn't, as a player, ask for more surety than most get, but I also wouldn't accept less. Yup, this. And agreements need both sides to come together.

Since 1995? If you look at nearly any team over that long a period, their record will regress towards 50%. Anyway, for a year or two there I thought Dak was a guy who could become elite. Either I was wrong or he's regressed. Couldn't happen to a nicer team.

Sure doesn't read that way to me. Looks like Dungy actually voted for Josh, but that his vote wasn't at first counted. That the correction is to correctly count Dungy's actual vote for Josh. And Dungy is generally great. I have extreme respect for him.

Yes, he had 16 TDs. That's one year. Over the last three years, he's managed 2, then 2, and then 16. What's next year most likely to look like? Seven? Eight, maybe? Nine? That's my guess. Maybe it'll be 16 again, but he still has a lot to prove before that seems very likely. Right now it looks like some kind of statistical anomaly. Not that that means Cook isn't good. He is. But for RBs, a high TD count has an awful lot to do with how many chances he gets and how good the OL is, of course. His long breakaways (and he has a few) are a different situation. His speed made a lot of difference on several of those plays, but overall you just see well-blocked, well-executed plays which did not require a sensational effort by the back. Doubt it? Here's a video of all his TDs last season. Do you look at this and say, "Wow, what a back!! Almost none of those get scored by another runner?" I don't. I see speed killing on three or so of those plays. And that beautiful five or six yard run up the gut where a guy hits him head on and his contact balance allows him to get right off it and score. Other than that, though, I see a lot of effective plays by a fine football team.