Thurman#1
-
Posts
15,945 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Thurman#1
-
-
3 hours ago, Gregg said:
Didn't Brady get hurt in week 1 one year and was lost for the season and Belichick still managed to get 10 or 11 wins out of the Pats. I think Cassell was his QB that year. I believe they also missed the playoffs as well. As for the Bills playing without 17, I don't even want to think about it.
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.
3 minutes ago, Einstein said:Yes, just a day or two ago.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, DCofNC said:
Take away JA17 and this is a 5-6 win team if you are being objective.
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.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Another Fan said:
Do you think Josh means more to the Bills though than Mahomes the Chiefs?
I would say yes.
I would say no. 'Bout the same.
The fact we have different guesses shows what? Is evidence of what?
-
51 minutes ago, FireChans said:
He wouldn’t have gotten a salary of $1M in FA.
I didn’t mention you could or couldn’t talk about anyone.
Not sure what argument you’re trying to have.
Except for Diggs who we did pay massively with his extension in 2022.
You can’t even get the basic facts straight to have whatever discussion you think you’re having.
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.
1 hour ago, Mister Defense said:Great post, using facts and excellent reasoning here, along with very good writing. So, no contest here.
The guy had said the same exact thing about running backs just a few months ago that he is now saying about wide receivers! And with the same kind of shoot from the hip, facts be da*ned, bizarre reasoning to 'back' his ideas up. Now, 'never mind', it's the wide receivers who should never be payed!
Your "for a tremendous offense" comment will likely send all of the rest of the bashers into another fit, of course.
Shoot, the Bills may have the best offense in NFL history this coming season, after having the best in the NFL last year.
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.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, FireChans said:
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.
I’m afraid you are missing the point.
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.
-
4 hours ago, GASabresIUFan said:
I don't think this is an accurate statement. The Bills have consistently failed to draft and develop difference makers at WR or RB under Beane. That stems primarily from a significant failure to invest in those positions in the draft early in his Bills GM career.
In Beane first 4 drafts with the Bills he spent 2 picks on RBs (both 3rds) and 5 picks on WRs (a 4th-Davis, 3 6ths, and a 7th). Is it really surprising that none of these players became difference makers? Hard to have difference makers at the skill positions unless you invest in skill players with premium draft picks.
In the next 3 drafts Beane has utilized a 1st and 2 2nds on skill players (Coleman, Cook, and Kincaid). The jury is still out on Coleman and Kincaid, but Cook is a bona fide star. Cook is the first legit difference maker at a skill position the Beane drafted besides Josh Allen. I really like Shakir, but he is just a slot receiver who catches the ball almost strictly underneath. (about 3 yards of AIR per catch)
Cook, on the other hand, has two consecutive 1000 Yards season on the ground with over 2800 yards from scrimmage. The last Bill RB to have those kind of numbers was McCoy and the last Bills draftee to accomplish it for the Bills was McGahee 20 years ago.
The funny thing is that this board is ok with paying Shakir 13 mill a season for 4 years after creating 1400 of offense total the last two years with 6 Tds, while not wanting to give Cook a similar deal when he's created 2800 yards and 24 Tds. Yes that's right, Cook and Shakir have the same number of receiving TDs the last 2 years.
For all those who say it's the O Line that makes Cook good, why did Cook average 4.9 yards per carry last year and Davis (who had 100+ carries last season) averaged only 3.9 behind the same line?
The Bottom line is that we don't know what the Bills under Beane will do about investing in a RB because Cook is the first difference maker at the position we've had under Beane.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Richard Noggin said:
Does James Cook project as a guy who will physically hold up with a higher enough workload to justify the big extension he seeks, year after year? Does he project as a guy who will dramatically step up his pass pro reads and physicality so he can stay on the field enough to justify the $$? Will he continue to improve the concentration issues: unforced drops and ball security concerns? Lots of questions.
The bolded is the core of this debate. In 2026, is a RB room taking up ~15M cap (Cook on a reasonable, friendlyish first year of his extension, plus Davis and Johnson) that much better than a room taking up ~$6M (Davis, Johnson, and day 2/3 rookie)? Maybe Johnson is gone in this scenario? Not to mention how Cook progresses and what they owe him in future years; Cook's number would have to count more fully against the cap eventually, and that could be about when he's already breaking down or falling off. His brother didn't last long into his 2nd deal, as we all know. Less mileage on this Cook, though. It's a fascinating question. I think I know Beane's most likely answer.
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.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, FireChans said:
I’d like to see some supporting evidence that the dollar amount of WR overpays in FA over the last 3 seasons is equivalent to any other position sans QB.
the Beasley and Brown contracts were in 2019. The NFL has changed a bit since then.
Amari Cooper wasn’t a free agent.Diggs didn’t play a snap on the extension given to him in 2022, are you being sarcastic that it was worth every penny?
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.
-
31 minutes ago, FireChans said:
Yeah, those are the ones that significant contracts.
The problem with “any position” is that WR is quickly becoming the second highest paid position.
So an overpay or bad contract for a mid tier off-ball linebacker will hurt less than an overpay or bad contract for a mid tier WR.
That’s the point.
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.
-
31 minutes ago, FireChans said:
I was talking about Mooney….
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.
-
4 hours ago, FireChans said:
Yeah, they were right, and the Jags were wrong. They could have been wrong and the Jags right. NONE of them knew it at the time.
That doesn’t make the market any less wild for a guy with back to back 400 yard seasons. That’s Josh Palmer production.
FWIW, I liked Mooney as an offseason target, and thought he would be overlooked because of how putrid Justin Fields is, but he got the same deal that a twice as productive WR on a Super Bowl contender got.
To me, that’s evidence the WR market is kinda nuts. Maybe you disagree. That’s cool
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.
-
16 hours ago, FireChans said:
I think at this point, the Bills are not going to chase a $30M WR like DK while Josh is here.
I would have less of a problem with an elite WR making elite money, but I think where the rubber meets the road is the "middle class" of WR's, that are also inflated relative to value.
The 32nd highest paid WR is making $11M AAV. That's 4% of the cap.
I can't easily pull the numbers, but in 2018, it was definitely less. John Brown was making like 2%.
Personally, I would rather have Cook + OL and no Palmer. Just draft guys at WRs. FA WRs aren't worth it. See: Samuel, Curtis.
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.
-
15 hours ago, FireChans said:
Fair points.
The snaps/dolllars amount makes Khalil Shakir's 13M AAV deal comparable to the tops in the league though.
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.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, FireChans said:
He was paid more than what some folks think James Cook is worth.
His contract was a top 5 RB contract.
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.
-
20 hours ago, FireChans said:
I’d take 500k on the condition that I lost my memory of the deal.
Hah!!! I like that proviso a lot!! Smart.
-
2 hours ago, FireChans said:
However, I would argue that this points to a strategy to take advantage of NFL decision-making at large. In a league where there is 1 winner and 31 losers, you don't want to follow the pack.
I suggest the Bills SHOULD meet Cook in the middle if he would take $15M AAV. We don't have a WR worth $30M. We aren't sure we ever will, and we aren't sure that we would pay them even if we did.
I would also suggest the Bills should NEVER pay a WR anything ever. There is no point in playing in a market where JAGs or good players are having their value this inflated. I don't know where the WR carousel ends, but I don't want to be on it when it does.
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.
40 minutes ago, Steve Billieve said:You say "market inefficiency" but how do you know you're not seeing market and analytics efficiency?
You can't pay top dollar at every position. There are absolutely running backs that can single-handedly take over a game. Do you honestly believe Cook is one of them?
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.
-
15 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:
Again, currently his 4.9 ypc would place him in the top 10 in nfl history. In 2023, he was 6th in total yards from scrimmage.
is he Barkley or Henry? No. But he is only legit game breaker on this entire offense besides Allen. It is quite an assumption to assume Davis (who averaged a full yard less per carry when backups normally average more than the starters because they got against tired defenses) and Ty Johnson (there’s a reason he’s bounced around) can fill Cook’s shoes. He’s been a great draft pick no matter how some fans try to downplay his success.
I don’t disagree but there’s some double standards. When we talked about Allen’s MVP case, everyone downplayed all the pieces around him. Now when it’s Cook, people love mentioning the o line.
I would counter that Allen and Cook are helped a lot by the oline and each other. Additionally, I think our WRs hurt them both because teams don’t fear getting beat deep so they play the line closer than they should with a guy like Allen’s arm.
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.
15 hours ago, klos63 said:Sorry, i can't easily dismiss 16 TDs like others can.
You may legitimately have concerns about his value, that's fair, but honestly, i think from most fans the reason for much of the criticism is because he posted on twitter a few months ago and no fan base gets more offended than the Bills.
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.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:
Not a single person has said that. Not sure what saying that accomplishes.
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."
-
2
-
3
-
-
21 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:
If you reduce James Cook to just the Touchdowns, you're neglecting 228 of his 246 touches. Averaging 4.9 yards on the ground and 8.1 yards per reception. A whole lot of yardage that extended the sticks and gave good field position for others to score. That's just as important, if not more.
I think you're also downplaying some of those TD's as well. The league is full of athletic RB's that either lack the vision or the decisiveness to find and hit those holes as quick as he does. There's plenty of fast backs that don't get to the edge because they took the wrong angles.
You come across as if you're saying "any fast RB could do what he did". I don't think that's accurate. If you feel that some overestimate his value, that's fair. But I think this evaluation swings the pendulum too far to the other side.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:
I'd take Rasul over all three without hesitation and I would hate the idea of him being our CB2. The Rams gave Tre a $3.25m guaranteed and he was so bad they just released him mid season. Dane Jackson was historically bad last year and the Panthers are now eating $1.5m in dead cap space. We know nothing about Strong yet besides him being a 6th round pick. If Hairston doesn't get the starting role look for a CB trade around week 7.
Yeah, me too. Rasul over all three of these guys. But maybe not by a whole ton.
-
2
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, BillsShredder83 said:
Me neither. Im not a victim blamer, but these guys are at a higher risk of a false accusation, even the guys who are careful. There are women who weaponize this kinda thing (see Trevor Bauer, Araiza). A woman who wanted to do that to you, would have major leverage knowing about that clause to try and bully a dude into settling out of court an a baseless & consensual encounter.
Wouldnt matter if i was the 2nd coming of Reggie White, Im not signing anything that says 'accusation or charge'. Its a dark thought, but a realistic one. Its painting a bullseye on your back. There are sufficient amounts of dirtballs in the NBA, but theres also a circle of hot females that target impregnations in the NBA as a paycheck. Itd be ignorant to pretend there arent women out there that would/have targeted this kinda thing before. Hell the Duke lacrosse lady did this, trying to get blood from a stone, those guys didnt even have sports money... was only going after mom & dad money.
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.
7 hours ago, julian said:It’s a great idea for teams, not so much for players, hence the issue
Yup, this.
And agreements need both sides to come together.
-
2
-
-
On 6/3/2025 at 3:40 AM, PonyBoy said:
Since 1995, the Dallas Cowboys have compiled a regular season record of 263 wins and 221 losses, resulting in a winning percentage of approximately 54.4%.
That's basically 8.4 wins per year. About as mediocre as you can get.
But the networks love their Cowboys, not gonna change now.
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.
-
25 minutes ago, Gugny said:
Lamont could have had 3 total touchdowns and missed 13 games … and Tony Dungy would STILL have voted for him.
I can’t stand that creepy, bible thumping prick.
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.
-
4
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, klos63 said:
How many RBs that did have 70% of the snaps get 16 TD'S. So many dismiss that, it's a big deal.
Re-watch some games from last season, if you do it's impossible to not see his impact and his value to the team.
Then watch how he performed in the playoffs, the guy is a stud, that's why Beane used a very valuable 2nd round pick on 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.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Keon drops 60 in Damar's celebrity basktball gam
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
"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.