Thurman#1

I see. So nobody's saying it's collusion except a reporter with no access whatsoever. So, you figure that the fact that some guy with a column somewhere used the word, that it may well be collusion despite the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence, zero. Again, your own definition specifically mentions "agreement." And not only is there no proof whatsoever of agreement, or cooperation or conspiracy. Nobody has even mentioned the possibility, except I guess you. Having one guy tell a group of guys they should not overpay is not collusion. Nor is it even close. Sorry, man, you're a great poster, but this idea is just dumb. Saying it's collusion when nobody is even mentioning an agreement, on the basis of them listening to a lecture, just dumb.

Yeah, that's what collusion means. And again, the word has NOT been used in the witness statements. In other words, only the reporter is using it. The witnesses are not. Meaning the people who actually saw what happened are NOT accusing the owners of secret or illegal conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others. (Thanks for the definition of the thing they are NOT being accused of by the people who were there.) What is actually described by the witnesses is only a guy with some authority urging business owners to keep prices down. NOT secret agreement or cooperation to do so. Pointing out what's in everyone's best interest is not collusion. To further use your definition there, the witnesses are NOT accusing the NFL of having a "secret agreement to fix prices." Where's the agreement there?

It's not that wealthy people do that. It's that some wealthy people do that. There are also plenty of wealthy people who genuinely lose it all.

I'm critical in the sense that I don't think he's worth a $15M year contract. I'd be happy to get him back at a figure that's a bit lower. And whether you're tired of it or not is beside the point, pass blocking is a knock, a legitimate knock. Just because the OL is really good and Josh is damn good at escaping guys who get through the blocking doesn't mean we should stop taking blocking seriously from the RB position.

Really? You're not convinced this group of WRs is better? Wow. Well, I am. I mean, we can't know, of course. But with Elijah Moore and Joshua Palmer? And Coleman in his second year? It's sure the likelihood that we got better. Injuries happen, and expectations sometimes aren't met. But we look significantly better. And yeah, we did keep drives going. Yeah, it's hard over 17 games. But we managed it with a poorer WR group. We managed it with Devin Singletary and Zach Moss a couple of years ago We've got Josh Allen. That's a huge part of the calculus. Yeah, Cook's a big part of their everyone eats results. But that part worked just about as well with Johnson and Davis. The difference Cook made was his breakaway long runs. That's the thing he does that nobody else on the team is anywhere near as good at. Cook wasn't second in TFLs. He had the seventh-most in the league, with 21. Bijan Robinson, Derrick Henry, Kyren Williams, Josh Jacobs, Jonathan Taylor and Saquon all had more. Are you talking about TFLs per rush, maybe, or something like that? In any case, TFLs are more usually about blocking than they are about RB skill. Well, yeah Singletary's YPC was bumped up by his rookie numbers. But he had more carries that year than other years. Sometimes being a change of pace guy improves your YPC. Sometimes not. In any case, his rookie numbers bump his total up, but not by all that much. And about halfway through that rookie year, Singletary was the starter. Even without that year his YPC is still very very good. And Singletary started most of the year for Houston as well. The Giants had him as a backup, though, after they saw what Tracy looked like. Singletary did not look as good last year, whether it was injury or the crappy line or just age or scheme fit or whatever. Cook isn't as good as Singletary at making the first guy miss (or at least as good as Singletary used to be; I haven't kept close track of himsince he left the Bills). Singletary was one of the absolute best at forcing missed tackles since he joined the league. Cook is better at using those missed tackles to create really long runs, of course, and that's a huge talent. Oh, but I'm totally with you about the contract problem not being just about AAV. AAV is just a convenient shorthand. But the Bills clearly don't think Cook is worth what he thinks he is. But I personally wouldn't do any $15M deals with Cook unless it was one of those things where there's a ton of non-guaranteed salary money in the last year of the deal that is very unlikely to ever be paid, the kind of thing Von Miller signed with the Bills for instance.

Boy, I don't agree with that for one second. He just wants to maximize his earning potential. Which from the player's perspective makes total sense.

Concern, I understand. But we aren't the offense we had last year. We're already better at WR, and Kincaid being healthy could very well be another major step upwards. It's possible Josh could keep having problems working together with him as he did last year, but I'd guess it's not the way to bet. And while we didn't create many explosives last year, we did keep drives going without explosive plays, really well. Again, I would love to get Cook back. But I understand totally that they seem to have a value that they're willing to give, and that they don't want to go beyond it. I myself simply wouldn't give $15M per year. Well, we'll see what happened. Oh, and I'd disagree with calling Singletary a plodder. He wasn't. He also wasn't nearly the breakaway threat Cook is. But he was terrific at making the first guy miss and turning 2 yard gains into five yarders. You look at his 4.7 YPC, with an OL that wasn't as good as the one we've got now, and it's not reasonable to call him a plodder. Not nearly the long threat Cook is but a good solid back.

Well, that's a big if. IMO the reason he didn't get more snaps last year was because of the deficits in his game. He's not a true smash-mouth short yardage hammer and he can't pass-block well. And Johnson's a better receiving back. If Cook improves his pass-blocking and pass-catching, maybe he'll get more snaps. And if that does happen, you could easily be right that he might get his 15M. Far from a sure thing that he'll make those improvements, though. Nor is it a sure thing that he ends up with a similar amount of TDs next year. Last season was a wild outlier in terms of TDs. My guess if given the same opportunities again next year he'd end up with closer to 7 - 10 TDs. Which is still damn good. But it's no 16 TDs. We'll have to see how it all turns out. But there's no particular reason to think that if we get rid of Cook that our run game would be "underachieving," your word there. I'd agree they'd have less of a threat to break one big, certainly. But our offense was still exceptionally good when our RBs were Singletary and Moss.

Um, I guess you're saying that I poorly mis-stated what you said? I don't see it myself, they appear nearly exactly the same. But let's say I completely messed it up. Thing is, what you actually said was every single bit as dumb as my recap of what you said. The idea that because something is said at a PC rather than a written interview ... that it wouldn't show up on the internet isn't just dumb, it's false. PCs have reporters covering them, and they put what is said into print. PCs these days are also on video. Again, they are covered ferociously, strip-mined passionately. If Josh had said something as incendiary as that at a PC, it would have been quoted a million times and been not just able to be found on the internet, but ubiquitous for days afterwards. The reason you can't find it is he never said that. As I pointed out before, all those things that Josh gets quoted on on the net? He said pretty much all of them at PCs and interviews. Hell, he said the thing you're quoting about Cook at a PC/interview. That somehow got reported on the net, didn't it? If you want to keep kidding yourself about that, go ahead. But the reality is the reason you can't find it is he never said it. Oh, and I love McDermott and Beane, both of them. I hope they'll both be here ten years from now. You know he said this at a press conference, right? And yet somehow you can find it on the net, in many many places. Which is how it works.

He does say things like that. Whenever he's asked. Which isn't all that often. but when it happens that's the kind of thing he says. More, it's the kind of thing pretty much every player in the NFL says when asked about their teammate's financial issues. It's about a half a step up from "He give 110%." Quick example from Josh: "I ' love that guy. Talk about a great man, husband, father, human being,' Allen said. 'He's on the top of the list when I'm asked about who those guys are in the locker room. We got a lot of love for him and his family, and. yeah, I would love to love to have him back.' " That's Josh on Mitch Morse here: https://www.buffalobills.com/news/micah-hyde-gabe-davis-mitch-morse-and-more-address-their-future-with-the-buffalo-bills And yes, it's a duh there. He (and virtually all NFL players) compliments guys after they leave the team. But that's less obviously necessary than complimenting the guy when he's still on your team. Josh does it when asked. They all do. You say Josh's words aren't online because he didn't say them online? Do you see how ridiculous that is? When he has "an interview/press conference," as you say, know what happens? It gets video'd. The videos are online. It gets reported. The stories are online. It gets covered by podcasts and internet savants, and their reports go online. they get reported online. This happens consistently, and so often that it's wildly boring that we see these same quotations again and again and again. And again and again. And again. All those things that Josh gets quoted on on the net? He said pretty much all of them at PCs and interviews. Hell, he said the thing you're quoting about Cook at a PC/interview. That somehow got reported on the net, didn't it? The reason you can't find it is because he didn't say it. Again, I'm totally willing to be proven wrong. But without a link (or a page in a newspaper story, or whatever, but proof), it didn't happen. In any case, I hope they do come to terms. It they do, IMO it will be because Cook came significantly off his $15M figure.

Can't say I'm going to do a deep dive here. Not interested enough. But this time of year, predicting the future, I don't find this non-germane or inappropriate. It's a time of year when people are looking for content that might be interesting and useful. This doesn't really pass the interesting test for me personally, but I don't blame them for trying. If they are incomplete, that's another matter. But hard to be complete when you're trying to include rookies who've never seen an NFL field.

Yeah, that really is kinda strange. It must be based on rookies, as they surely didn't deserve that based on last year's performance. Ah, yeah, they're including Bosa. Clearly does include the new guys, Hoecht, Ogunjobi, etc. Particularly later in the year, the rookies should be a major factor as well. Defensible, then. One opinion, not much more than that, but it would certainly be just as defensible to say you think they won't be top ten. But not unreasonable.

Big AHole. CTE. Both of these things can be true.

Nah. Delta Force is selecting from a group of soldiers. We're selecting from a group of football players. It's much the same thing in that each is selecting from a group of people who has had preparation that could potentially prepare them for what is needed from them, but equally doesn't prove that you'll be good at it. There are plenty of men of high character in the group Delta is selecting from. And while all of them had gone through training, except in time of war, most have not killed anyone. And it goes beyond that ... Studies show that a majority of soldiers in every war don't actually shoot their weapons with intent to kill or harm the enemy. Check S.L.A. Marshall's work, (which has been supported in recent research) or for just a quick look, go here: Absolutely nothing wrong with being culture-centric.

Yup. Possible that it came only from Beane, but equally possible that he was delivering a message for someone. Not a big deal, to me anyway, regardless.

The words "collude" and "collusion" are not in the witness statements, not that we've heard. Only the article's writer introduced them, in speculation. I don't think this is the bombshell it at first looked like.

Josh says this sort of thing about everyone. As he should. Example? On Mack Hollins: "'Super sad to see Mack go. I know he was kind of a fan favorite as well as a favorite in the locker room. I'm very happy for him and what he got. Hate that he's a division rival now but it's the game that we play.'" We could very easily see Josh making the same kind of statement about Cook when he goes after next season. Is Devin Singletary as good as Cook? Or is he just a good back? Because this offense was extremely successful with Singletary as our #1 also. And did Josh actually say, "It had to be done," about getting rid of Dorsey? I don't remember that, so I googled it and your post is the #1 thing at google with those elements. I think you might be misremembering. But if I'm wrong, I'd certainly respect it if you could link it. Anytime Josh is asked about a salary dispute about a guy still on the team, he's going to say much the same thing. Not that I have any doubt Josh would like him back. I'm sure he would (along with most of the roster). But he understands salary cap issues.

Where are all these people "wanting him gone"? I suppose there are probably a few, but very few. Most of us don't want him gone, we don't want to overpay for him. And we think that $15M would absolutely be overpaying, and strongly suspect that Cook isn't going to sign for what we want to pay. He'll get more from someone, is my suspicion. No way. Davis and Ty are worth their contracts. Maybe a bit of an uptick at the end. And this isn't a run-first offense. It just isn't. It's maybe a pass-1A and run-1B offense. It's a you don't know what we'll do on any particular play because we can do what we want offense. Makes us unpredictable. And while it's nice to lower this year's cap number, that's not the only year that matters. They all matter. And overpaying is not a good idea, it just isn't.

Not even that constrained. A lot of his passes were just "Get open quickly. Pick the side that looks better to you." He really was fun to watch. He was a legit starter, a quality starter. Just not a top ten. 14 - 24 sort of thing, depending on the players around him, the offense, and whether he was behind or ahead. He was much better playing from ahead. More often closer to 14 than 24.

"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.