Thurman#1

You really didn't. What you had there were guesses, not knowledge. Educated guesses, but guesses. And I'm not saying that about you particularly. It's true of everyone, me certainly included. I hated the Whitner pick (I didn't mind him, I just wanted Ngata) and questioned the Maybin and Spiller picks also. I kinda liked the McKelvin pick and still don't have a major problem with that one, myself. And I'm sure I'm far shorter and more irritating than you, and much more often. I'm sorry about that myself, more so than you should have to feel, IMO. In person I'm a consistent sweetheart and here I'm much more caustic than is good for me to be. Have a great week, and I say that uncaustically. This is about where I stand. I think they're probably all three on the roster, though I would say the most likely cut/trade would be Ford rather than Moss. But we'll see.

Enough balls to go around won't be the limiting factor. Roster spots will be. There are three available and probably another for STs. If these are the top three, which is what I think will happen, there'll be plenty of room for all of them. More, if they want to spread it around, there'd be plenty of balls to go around. It's not as if you save much money getting rid of Moss. You could certainly be right, but I doubt it.

Well, depends if you want to maximize yourself. If you do, yeah, view all things the way I do. There is no alternative for people of true culture. But back to reality. If you judge things only partially that way, then the rest of your method may well be terrific. But it simply isn't fair to judge a pick by what you missed out on. Other than perhaps the very first few picks there's nearly always someone better picked later. Being a human endeavor, that's what you'd expect. Hindsight always makes things look much easier than they actually were.

I'm not sure it's that clear. I'd agree they aren't giving him a big long-term deal, but they might work out something. I hope so.

If you had originally put "Saquon" in the headline you'd probably have gotten a bit better response. We've got a guy named Barkley on our team and I'm sure many (me included) came here thinking you were talking about Matt and thus were irritated as they found you weren't. You might even still be able to change it for first-time visitors. Ligaments and tendons can absolutely be strengthened, grown, bullet-proofed and developed. Having said that, I hear you. RBs tend to wear down sooner than other positions. And CMC seems a good example, though I hope we get to see him healthy again. He was fun to watch.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Ford go. The other two I would expect to be here. It's still early. Not for too much longer, though. If you judge things that way, most picks will look pretty bad. Few picks are so good that nobody better gets picked later.

Bayless is indeed an idiot, but he's not so much doubting Allen as he is saying that Baker hasn't had enough of a chance for us to know what he is yet. Still a bit wacky.

Players always say good things about new teams. But most of it is boiler-plate. The same stuff you hear every time. They value me as a player. Their best player is terrific, it's great to join him and the second-best player. Really looking forward to coming in and making a difference. I'm gonna give 110%. It's when they start getting very specific about the compliments that you know they are real. And players are very specific on Buffalo lately.

So by dominant you mean statistically prolific in one year? Jerry Rice wouldn't be out of place on a list like that. Rice's 1990 and 1993. The guy who's often left out of these discussions is one of the ones who most belongs. Don Hutson. In 1936 he had 34 catches when the #2 was at 20. And 536 yards when the #2 was at 414, #3 at 358, the #4 at 325 and nobody else was above 268. Only four players got above HALF of is total that year, and that was Hutson's 2nd year in the league. Oh, and 8 TDs when the #2 was at 6 and the #3 only had 3 of them!!!! Or look at his 1939 work. 846 yards when the #2 only managed 550 and the #3 only 437. Or his 1941, [war years] when when he managed 738 yards while the 2nd best managed 362, less than half. 58 receptions when the next best managed 29, half. 10 TDs when the #2 managed 6 and the third-best only 4. Same kind of insane dominance for the next few years. One of the all-time most dominant seasons and maybe players as well.

First, we don't have only one other star player on offense. Only one other top five at his position? OK, fair enough. But Knox is top ten, as is Dawkins. As was Beasley before he regressed, shown by his All-Pro year. And the evidence doesn't show that the offense is secondary to the defense in the draft. It could just as easily be that they're going BPA. Out of 18 players picked by this FO in the first three rounds, nine were on offense. And those numbers only look that even if you leave out the 1st rounder we traded for Diggs. Include it as you should, and this FO has used picks from the first three rounds to select 10 players on offense and 9 on defense. And yes, they traded for Diggs. They traded a draft pick. Not a player. Like it or not they acquired Diggs with a pick, not a player-for-player deal. And while there certainly are some afterthoughts on the OL, Dawkins and Morse are both quality player, and while Ford certainly hasn't been good, he wasn't an afterthought, he was a 2nd round pick. Nor is Saffold an afterthought. You're spinning like a dervish. Davis "couldn't even make the starting lineup last year," you say. More spin. He started several games, including the last three. They're far from the be-all and end-all, but PFF had Davis as one of their top 101 players last year. Not receivers, players. Specifically #93. They said, "Davis began the season buried on the Bills depth chart and was barely a factor for most of the year. But the more the team used him, the bigger an impact he made. His season culminated with an absolute destruction of the Kansas City secondary, where he caught eight of the 10 passes thrown his way for 201 yards and four touchdowns. He caught 11 touchdowns from only 74 targets, with passes thrown his way generating an absurd passer rating of 131.3." That is probably too high, but they're right that he's a good player, likely a good solid #2.

Disagree. Knox is probably a top ten TE right now. And Davis near the end of the year was starting to look like a good #2. Top five? Nah, you're clearly right if that's what you meant by "top level."

Oh, please. Where was the Stefon Diggs on that New England team? Even their TEs were crap. There is no comparison between the 2019 NE groups of receivers and pass catchers and this year's Bills group. Our skill position guys outside QB aren't top three. But they're well above middling.

I think he really underestimated them. Took him till near the end to even mention Knox. I think he underestimates Knox and Davis. Yeah, Josh does make them look better. So do the other top ten QBs do the same to their offensive weapons. IMO we're going to see a major dip in production for the cheetah this year for example.

The bumps up come mostly at the high end of the market. Market resets have less effect the farther down from the top few you go. It will certainly affect what Poyer's agents are asking. No question. Will it mean much of a jump for the aging Poyer? IMO it's not that clear. And if Poyer insists on a major jump, I'd guess that will really lower the likelihood he spends 2023 in Buffalo.

Doubt it. I wouldn't put them higher than probably 4th. But who knows. Could be, I guess.

Really? Oh, man! Horrible! I just don't follow MLB much over here and I'd totally missed this. Awful to watch.

It absolutely was a mess, Bill, it just was. They were paying a .500 football team like it was in a championship window. That's a mess. Were they in cap jail? No. Were they absolutely forced to drop all those guys? No. Were they in bad cap shape for that roster? Yeah. You're dead right that they didn't see that squad as their guys, of course. And that they were not forced to take on all that dead cap. It was a tactical choice. Get rid of those guys and get an absolute ton of cap flexibility in 2020, or keep those cap hits spread out and have very limited cap flexibility for the next couple of years due to the poor contracts Whaley had signed for guys like Dareus, Charles Clay, Tyrod and McCoy. Not to mention guys who are out of the league like Cordy Glenn, Incognito (a damn good player when his head was on straight, but it wasn't). Eric Wood was a good player with damn bad luck, they had to take the pain there, but didn't have to make him a pre-June 1 designation. They wanted to take all the EWood pain early, to get the cap in much better shape by 2019.

Yup. I'll be there talking sense. No, I won't be saying anything about "quiet." Quiet isn't a money term. Beane has never been quiet and I don't expect him to start. He does a lot. He just does it in a way that's smart. You can borrow a bit on your card. You just can't borrow without paying it back. Every penny of cash paid out will hit the cap now or down the road. That's fact. Borrow too much and it will cause you pain in the future. The Rams are spending over 30% in cash more than the cap this year. A lot of the reason they can do that is because they have not spent much over the cap the past three years. When you're conservative for a while you can spend a wad of cash. Particularly when you're expecting a significant raise the next year. A really good franchise QB like Stafford is generally a damn smart thing to borrow some money for.

So is accounting accounting. And if you do it wrong, they arrest you and throw you in jail. "Accounting" does not mean "magic." It's a method of keeping track of money. There's still stuff you can do, and stuff you can't do. You keep two sets of books, you get arrested. The IRA fines you. You can spend time in jail. Now the salary cap won't put you in jail, but yes it will cause you problems and tighter situations down the line. Gunner, you are saying two things here and acting as if they are one. Yes, good and smart teams won't be stopped from singing players. But no, even good and smart teams will absolutely, factually and without question, not be able to sign everyone they want. All you have to do is ask Beane if there are some guys he'd like to sign if there were no cap. Or any other GM. I factually could buy a Lamborghini now and put it on the credit card. It would cause havoc for me a year or two down the line. Same in any form of accounting, including the cap. Yes, it's flexible. But it's this simple, you spend more this year, you're borrowing from future years. Yeah, that's accounting. But actions have consequences. And what Brandt is saying is nothing new or interesting. He's saying you can borrow from future years by using signing bonuses, which allow you to pay cash now and have that hit the cap later. Yeah. Exactly the same as you can buy something on your credit card now and put off paying it till later. We all know this. But you DO HAVE TO PAY IT LATER!!! And the money will hit the cap later.

It's only to Patriots loons like that guy that it seems that we're always punching down at the Patriots. We talk about them, yeah. But any Bills fan knows it's the Chiefs we talk much more about. So, nah. Only in a Pats-centric universe does it make sense to answer one article about the Pats and pretend that it means as he thinks that the Bills are focusing on the Pats.

Wacky.

Yup. Agents are supposed to say their clients got more than they expected. Makes the client think the agent is doing his job. And year 6 of Miller's deal has a salary of $30M. That's wildly unlikely to be paid to a 39 year old Von. So it's basically as 5 year $90M deal, with a healthier guarantee than Jones got but otherwise much the same for the first three years

Well, first, you're mis-stating it. He reached out to his friend DeMarcus Ware, not to the Cowboys. And no, the fact that he did that absolutely does not mean what you say there, that a championship was his first criteria. There is a whole range of seriousness in terms of how you reach out and whether you are kicking tires, trying to get your name out there and create a buzz or showing serious interest. The fact that he grew up in the area has absolutely zero probitive value. Zero. Whether he'd have gone somewhere for the same money isn't "the" question, it's one of many someone might ask if he was curious. And what we know here gives not the slightest clue about how interested Miller was, with the exception that if he really was interested he probably would have called Jerry Jones rather than DeMarcus Ware. This is a horrible headline because there's nothing to back it up. It's like looking at the sky, seeing it's grey, and with no further evidence writing a headline that we're having a blizzard. This was most likely the football equivalent of Robert Shaw throwing chum off the back of the boat.

Nah. What happens to Daboll from the instant he left Buffalo is irrelevant to what happens to Dorsey. Every tree produces hits and misses. That's simply how it works.

No.