Thurman#1

Yeah, my guess is that this contract makes the most likely scenario another mid-range FA slot guy, but not an expensive one, and draft another. I also wonder how much of this contract is guaranteed.

He has them so trapped and ensnared. I really liked him with the Skins and thought he'd be a franchise guy somewhere. He is, I think, but the contract he got them to sign, with all the guarantees, left them all in on him from instant one. They've no real way out. At some point, someone will have to bite the bullet on getting rid of him, but if this GM does, he's completely admitting Cousins fleeced him. Glad I'm not a Vikes fan.

I do barely remember mentioning Deion Sanders. What I said was of course completely different from what you claim. You're pulling the classic "he mentioned Guy B in the same sentence as Guy A and therefore I can claim that he thinks they're the same" move. Folks who have to resort to pretending a guy said something he didn't, are very very sad indeed. And that's what you did here. So, let's review so we can all look and see what a cloddish straw man argument you're making here. You said this: I replied with this: That's the only mention of Sanders in the post. That's the whole paragraph. (Please, anyone reading, this, check me. I'll post the link right here.) https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/topic/238355-bills-2021-rookie-class-ranked-27th-in-league/page/5/ My post is at 2/7/2022 7:14 PM I don't even mention Edmunds in the same paragraph. And yet you're so utterly desperate here that you throw up one of the all-time dumbest straw man arguments ever, right in the post I'm replying to. In fact, you're so happy with this sad little straw man you referred to it above somewhere as if you'd made some point. But back to the post I'm replying to: See what he did there, folks? I did not compare them. He did. That comes out of whole cloth, directly from his own mind. I did use Sanders as an example of a guy doing something he said never happened. His argument there is nuclear-level dumb, and I pointed it out with reference to Deion as one example of a common phenomena. Never mentioned him together with Edmunds, though. Never compared them. That's entirely out of his own fecund mind.

I'd argue that might be twisting it a bit. I do see your point, but right tackle is only one roster spot. Meaning when you get down to #16, you're at the middle of the league's starters. Guard is two roster spots, left and right, so when you get down to #16, you're still in the top 25% of starters. Comparing RTs with your choice of RG or LG would be fairer. But a pain in the butt as I don't know how anyone would find guards listed in those categories without going person by person, which would be take a lot of time. EDIT: Ah, already mentioned above. As for Williams, you could certainly be right. I'm not convinced. I don't think he's playing up to his contract, and I think this could go either way. I could see them keeping him, or asking him to take a cut or take off. If you save $6.75M by cutting him, which is what it seemed to me, and if $4.35M of this year's salary guarantees on 3/20, it's something they'll probably consider. We should know what they do very soon. If he's on the roster on the 21st, he'll likely be here for the year.

I don't care when we get guys. I care that they do what the FO wants done at a good to excellent level. Morse, Beasley, Brown, Matakevich were solid contracts. Morse has been a good pass-blocker and helped keep Allen healthy. Not completing a contract doesn't mean it was a bad contract. Some contracts that don't get completed are good. Some are bad. Beasley's first two years he was a crucial piece, helping Allen stay safe and learn the game. He's apparently lost some athleticism and at this point is overvalued, but he sure wasn't before. Jefferson could easily have been a really good contract but injuries and Lotulelei's output meant they couldn't use him the way he should've been used, as a chess piece outside and at 3-tech. Instead he was a consistent DT. That's not how he would have been best used. The Raiders used him this was in 2021 and he's been really good. It's too bad couldn't, but it wasn't so much the contract that hurt as it was how bad luck elsewhere forced us to use him. Addison may have been a bit overpaid but no so badly. His contract Murphy wasn't worth the money. Neither was Butler. Klein has been a good player, perhaps a bit overpaid. Matakevich also. Lotulelei has been better than most want to admit. He's been a very solid space-eater, a role that McDermott needs filled on this defense and it's visible that when out this team has allowed teams to run quite a bit more efficiently. Overpaid, though, particularly as he was unavailable so much last year. Overall, probably overpaid. But that's what you have to do on the first day or two. It's how it works. Players work like dogs their whole careers to get to a point where teams feel they need to get them the first day or two or not at all. If signed there they'll get a really good second contract.

Yes, we've seen the caps manipulated by teams like New Orleans. And we've seen that far fewer teams that manipulate the cap wildly like New Orleans win Super Bowls. The Saints had a top three QB and a top five coach for about a decade and could only come up with one SB. And a lot of that was that they were wrestling with the cap every eyar. Yes, we're in a Super Bowl window now, but also for the next fifteen years or so. Making the future more difficult is NOT a smart move when you're in a window as long as this one. I do agree with you that we will probably have to pick up a DE somewhere, in the draft or a FA less expensive than Hunter is my guess. Nobody doubts that the cap can be manipulated. It absolutely can. The question is whether it should. The cap can be manipulated, and Beane does that every single year. Everyone does, really. The cap can also be manipulated ruthlessly by kicking lots of cans down the road. Beane does not do that. Nor should he. Hell, no. This was covered extensively earlier in the thread but hasn't been mentioned much lately. (Edit: I didn't see much on P. 8, but on P. 9 it's back at the forefront, as it should be. But Hunter has played in seven games in the last two years. Though very talented, he's an injury risk.

I think many are. I'm pretty hopeful myself, because I expect maybe one biggish guy, not genuinely big, but biggish, and then a bunch of low- to medium-level pickups. I think that's reasonably likely. I'm really confident overall, though. Beane has been absolutely excellent. He's put together absolutely excellent rosters two years in a row.

Yes, we all have opinions. No problem. What's stupid is saying "It's just reality" about your opinion. More, you say I don't have to go on a crusade when someone has an opposing opinion? Yeah, guess what, when somebody starts a thread about someone like Chandler Jones or somebody, you don't have to leap in with your usual "Wah, wah, wah, I hate Edmunds" crap in the first post either. You folks threadnap relentlessly with your sad little Edmunds hatred. At least when I point out how ridiculous some of this Edmunds hate is, I wait till somebody says something about Edmunds. I don't run around thread-napping like you did here and like you folks do constantly. And while gospel is far overdoing it, Beane has shown that outside of draft smoke, he answers honestly. I'm sure you know that. He's not one of those guys who simply lies anytime he feels like it. When he doesn't want to answer something, he doesn't need to lie, He's very adept, as is McDermott at throwing out a few Crash Davisisms that say nothing. When he goes out of his way to go into great detail about something, he's telling the truth. He could've heard the question and said, "Well, you know Tremaine Edmunds, I want him beside me in a street fight. He gives 110% every time. He's an NFL player right to the core. Next question." He could've said that, but he didn't. He specifically said Edmunds will "definitely" be "a core building block moving forward." You may not want to hear that, but he said it and he's shown himself to be a guy who doesn't find it necessary to lie. And you had to throw in a straw man in this dumb post too, hunh? Could you just point out where I compared Edmunds to Deion Sanders? Just quick link to it. I'll wait. But nobody should hold their breath, because that's a total straw man. The reason I talk about the fact that he changes a lot of QB minds about a lot of throws over the middle is because the evidence shows that that's what happens. Teams throw less over the middle to intermediate range and deeper against us than against nearly anyone else. Edmunds has a whole ton to do with that.

Because they save $350K this year on the cap, getting him to sign this and adding a void year? Because he's not the worst punter around, he was just - by that particular measure - the worst starter, and bringing in a guy who couldn't even start would be even worse? Because bringing in someone better would likely mean giving some guaranteed money for a team that may well draft a guy and get someone cheap in that way, requiring paying a guarantee to a guy you think you'll probably cut in camp? Nah, couldn't be any of those. Because ... stuff This is a remarkably tiny little issue. People getting upset about it says far more about them than it does about Beane.

And more dumbage from you. Consistency is a virtue, sometimes. Not so much when it's consistency in not getting it. What happened here is that we renegotiated his deal so that he has nothing guaranteed, actually $75K. He's essentially a camp body. He actually saved a bit of money this year on the cap by re-signing as they also put a void year on the end and moved $350K to that void year, according to overthecap. And you use that to figure that now you know why we don't win Lombardis!! How old are you? Seriously. Are you 12 or below? If you are, I'll definitely treat your brilliant conclusions with much less disdain.

OK, I'm going to pretend that I didn't read this so that I can scream and howl and be angry some more. Because we are doing many many things differently than we did last year? Oh, wait, I forgot I was going to pretend!!! YEAH!!! SCREAM!!! YELL!!! HOWL!!!! From what I understand, now none of his money is guaranteed. Oh, wait, I did it again!!! HOWL!!! BLAME!!!! MOAN!!!!

Sorry, man, your whole argument here has all the logical validity of a guy saying, "Well, this is a fruit. Therefore we've proved that if it isn't an apple, it must be an orange." And then parading around and basking in the imaginary huzzahs he figures that deserves. At this point, it's very clear that you simply don't get it but are willing to argue forever. Honestly worse than talking to my six year old. When she was three years younger. I'm out.

You're doing it again. Refusing to believe the obvious. Enjoy the personal little Bizarro world you're going to be living in.

Seen Moe and Larry lately?

You've put it perfectly. You refuse to believe this. Precisely! That is indeed your problem, that you see something that makes sense and refuse to believe it. After all, finding a scapegoat feels so very much better than listening to reason. No scapegoat means no pitchfork, and that's the fun part for many.

Indeed.

Fire them comes after. First and most important is to find the whipping boy. It's a desperately stupid direction to head in, but wired deep among the worst of human instincts. You're still indulging the need to identify the scapegoat. The screaming and blaming comes later. The order of dumb thinking isn't blame the scapegoat and then find the scapegoat. You gotta find him first.

Yup. Plenty of people won't hear that though. One of the most powerful human logical failures is the desperate urge to find a chump to blame for failures and to then scream about how stupid he is.

What a load of horse crap. Luck is a stone cold fact. Bad luck happens. So does good luck. So does roughly equal luck. What you appear to be doing here is indulging one of the absolute worst human traits, the desperate urge to find a scapegoat and pick up torches. It's a failure in rationality, a glitch in the mental wiring. Is one person sometimes responsible more than others? Sure. But the insistence that everything comes down to failure is pure nonsense and pitchfork hunger. Now, should your higher-ups take responsibility? Sure, as McDermott did. Does that mean that a rational listener should say, "Well, it's a loss, so it has to be blamed on the coach and the GM, quick, get out the pink slips?" Again, hungering for a whipping boy to blame it all on is more a failure of thought, of method, in those desperate to throw blame as fast as they can. It's the urge to scream, "Mommy, mommy, he did it, he did it, everybody, let's hate him!!!"

Not having anywhere near enough talent until the last two years. Thirteen seconds this year, and the coin flip in overtime. Last year, and this year too really, bad matchups and the fact it's really hard to win two or three games in a row against the best teams in the league when luck can go against you and footballs bounce strangely.

Yeah, not a surprise. Guys are going to be interested in coming here. Jones would probably fit well here. If he does give us a bargain price, that'd definitely improve the probability of it happening

If irrationality weren't a factor, you'd be capable of seeing that what you have there isn't "just reality." And not an especially believable opinion. This questionable opinion you have is directly opposed to our GM, and yet you still are so absolutely convinced that you're right and he's wrong that you bring in the always dumb "blinders" thing. They made him captain. Three years running. They say they love him. They guarantee him $12.3M by picking up the option. They have a really good defense three years running with him at MLB. This week Beane says that Edmunds is "definitely" a "long-term building block moving forward" for this team. They have more information than you do about what he's worth to this team by a factor of probably hundreds. And yet you know more than them. Sorry, man, the idea that it's "just reality" is untrue on the face of it. It's an opinion. One that is directly opposed by the people who know best.

Nonsense! Top three is plenty good enough to win it all. The Rams weren't top three. They were probably on the bubble of the top seven. And again, as I said but you left out, the Bills were probably the single best roster. Beane has to put together a roster that makes them competitive consistently. If he does that, they'll win at some point and probably pretty soon. Losing last year was absolutely not Beane's fault. He's been terrific.

Yeah, Beane created the "problem" of bringing in probably the best roster in the league last year and certainly top three. He does certainly need to continue trying to maximize the roster, as does every GM in history.

Yes. We have players in the league that have been convicted of domestic violence. Are you actually trying to say that this did not have major negative effects on the players and the teams? Because it did. Plenty of guys never even got the chance. Remember Ray Rice? Please don't pretend that any of your arguments above don't mean that dealing with those abusers didn't have negative effects. It did. As for Roethlisberger, whose name is still consistently misspelled so that the first four letters come out as a sexual crime, he was hurt by that. A lot. So was the team. Your argument that the league is doing well and therefore there were no negative effects from the various domestic violence and sexual violence crimes is completely without merit. Of course there were bad effects. Luckily the league also has many good things going on generating good publicity and good will. Luckily for the NFL, among the large number of NFL players, very few have had these. For every Roethlisberger, there's a Josh Allen. In fact, for every Roethlisberger there are a host of Josh Allens, Lamar Jacksons, Matt Staffords, Harrison Phillipses, Fred Jacksons, Lorenzo Alexanders, Brian Moormans, and on and on. It's not a mistake that the NFL spends so much time publicizing the Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year award nominees and winners. They are actively trying to mitigate the damage that guys like Desean Watson do to the NFL's image and brand. How many times do we hear, "considered the league's most prestigious honor, the Walter Payton ..." It's very prestigious, but it's not the most prestigious award. The Lombardi trophy, the MVP, there isn't a player who wouldn't trade those for a Walter Payton. But the NFL flacks that award like crazy. Specifically to give the idea that despite the Watsons and Henry Ruggses and Phillip Adams's, there are also a lot of really good guys out there. They're out there selling that award to fans desperately. But it's the Watsons and Rices and Ruggses who get the headlines and hurt the brand. The Steelers suffered got less bad publicity than whatever team picks up Watson will get, because they could already say, "He's been with us for four years. We love the guy, we've developed a relationship. What we've seen" Much less blame-worthy than a team with no relationship with the guy bringing him in saying, "Yeah, we don't know him personally, I mean, we know he's probably a total perv but he is a good football player, so we're willing to accept any effects this has on the women of our city." But we still see articles today speaking to the bad effects the Pittsburgh thing had. Here's one from the Guardian titled, "Roethlisberger was easy to admire as a quarterback, but not as a man." https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jan/18/ben-roethlisberger-pittsburgh-steelers-quarterback-nfl-sexual-assault-allegations