Thurman#1

Yeah, and with the huge amount of cap we had available last year to .... um .... oh, wait.

So many higher priorities. And with 1100 yards from scrimmage last year, I think he's going to get quite a bit more than you think. It's not like I'd mind but we have so many more urgent needs and so little money to spend, I think he's a bad use of resources.

The problem with cutting Joe B is smart and he gets what the Bills will do right a lot in terms of offseason moves. But ad hominem away if you must. Better to attack the arguments, though, I'd think, myself. The problem with cutting these guys is that many to most would have to be replaced. The exceptions would be Ford, who so far hasn't been good enough to worry about replacing and Feliciano who appears to have effectively been replaced by Bates. But if you cut Haack, he needs to be replaced. Klein is our best guy as a 3rd LB when teams put in an extra OL. He's very good at that, a thumper. I don't see anyone on the roster who could just step into that role. If you cut McKenzie you badly need another slot. Beasley has lost a lot of effectiveness against man-to-man. He used to be really good at any defense, and that just isn't the same at this point. McKenzie was good against man-to-man but hasn't really shown a lot against zone. Ideally we would draft/acquire a young slot guy who can be effective against both types of coverage, but if we cut McKenzie it becomes a necessity. Matakevich could go but he'd have to be replaced also. Could we maybe do it cheaper? I'd guess yes, but not all of his money will become available, IMO. Williams in particular would have to be replaced. The top five OLs really came together very late with him at RG. They played well. I'd guess that they absolutely are going to bring in a guard or two whether they keep him or not, but if he goes it would again seem a necessity. They don't have a guy who can seamlessly replace him unless we see a miracle turnaround from Ford or something wild like that. Star has always very effectively filled the space eater role, he's the best on the team, and it's a role they need filled in the McDermott defense. Phillips has really stepped up, but he's a bit more of a penetrator rather than a guy who eats blocks, and they want the LBs to be able to flow freely, which really hasn't happened the last couple of years especially in all the games Star has been out. There are major concerns with availability with Star, but if we cut him, I'd expect us to draft a mountain of a man to step into that role, as we need two one-techs and only really have one. I don't think they feel Zimmer fits that role as well as they'd like, though he does fit as a role player. I could see all of them going, and Beasley besides. But a pretty decent portion of the money freed up ($24M?) would go to replacements, and / or some draft picks as well. He really did. The problem is that for an effective tackle his salary is reasonable. Less for an effective guard. I would guess that they'd be much more willing to keep him if he negotiates downwards a bit.

15 in 2016 out of 373 attempts. 4.0%, which is really high. But he cut that way down the next year.

Yes, teams pick where they pick. But there are 31 other teams picking too. Freiermuth was both available and yet a good bargain with what teams knew at #55, and Knox was the same at #96. A round and a half is a round and a half, it's 41 players later, which means 41 players fewer to choose from at #96. Agreed that the Steelers are quite happy with the pick, but it's very arguable that Knox was a considerably better bargain. We'll see whether that continues to be so as time passes.

If you compare Knox this year in qualitative stats, they're really similar. To Kelce's 3rd year. The quantitative ones not so much, as they targeted Kelce significantly more. That might be partly due to KC's wideouts back then in 2015. The starters were Jeremy Maclin and Albert Wilson. Backups and role players included (in descending order of yards) included Chris Conley, De'Anthony Thomas and Jason Avant. I'd argue a QB might be more inclined to throw to guys like Diggs, Sanders, Beasley, McKenzie and Kumerow than that more underwhelming group. Y/R: Knox 12.0 and Kelce 12.2. Catch percentage: Knox 69.0% and Kelce 69.9% Y/Tgt: Knox 8.3 and Kelce 8.5 Y/R: Knox 12 and Kelce 12.2 Longest: Knox 53 yards and Kelce 42 yards 1st downs: Knox 53 and Kelce 40 TDs: Knox 9 and Kelce 5 And TDs is a very significant measuring stick.

Geez, yes, it's enough. The guy has improved his blocking by leaps and bounds, he's doing a terrific job there as well. He's become one of the two guys catching the ball that teams are specifically game-planning against. He's going to be here a long while, barring unforeseen circumstances like financial intransigence or serious injury.

Thanks for serving as an excellent example of the type of opinions held by Edmunds haters. Great job.

Kid yourself if you must, but that is what you're doing. It's wildly clear that his haters do indeed think they're way smarter than McDermott and everyone in the locker room and. They don't want to put it in those words, but they do. And what you're saying is "by my logic," um, well, it's not. In fact, it That's not my logic, nor really any kind of logic of any sort. It's just a desperate and unsuccessful attempt on your part to compare the way those guys have been treated by McDermott. In fact, it's your extremely pathetic attempt at a straw man argument. Tell me, was Cody Ford a captain? Three years in a row? A two-time Pro Bowler? I didn't really keep track ... did anyone name Haack the NFL STs rookie of the month the way they named Tremaine the NFL Defensive Rookie of the Month? Was Haack the NFL STs Player of the Week this year, or was Cody Ford the NFL Offensive Player of the Week this year the way that Edmunds was the NFL Defensive Player of the week this year? Did they exercise Haack's fifth-year option for $12.716M? Wait, that's not fair, since they couldn't. Did they contract with Haack to guarantee him $12.716M? Cody Ford? Just quick remind me, did any of those happen? Precisely. Of course they didn't. Again, you can kid yourself, but there's no comparison with how they've treated Tremaine to how they have treated Ford and Haack. The Bills love this guy. There's a weird group of folks out there who hate him. Which is pretty bent, but whatever. But they think that the guy sucks and that the Bills would be better without him, which is the opposite of what McDermott thinks, what Beane thinks, what everyone at TBD thinks, and what people around the league thinks. This sad group thinks they're smarter. Again, they really aren't. Doesn't stop them from doing a lot of talking, though.

Oh, please. That makes no sense. After you're eliminated from the playoffs, playing young guys to learn more about their capabilities for the next year isn't tanking. Wentz went 3-8-1 that year. Having a QB who sucks in your system and circumstances isn't tanking. Nor is yanking that guy at that point to give someone else a shot. Not even close. Don't you see that saying, "No one tells billionaires what to do," and that you "don't blame Flores or any other coach for refusing to play along," is contradicting yourself on the very same line? No one tells billionaires what to do? Flores appears to have done just that. And now there's a chance Ross will be separated from his cash cow. Wade Phillips did just that to Ralph, in a local example, accepting that it might get him fired. There are plenty more examples. If you tell a billionaire what to do, you might have unpleasant consequences, but plenty of times that's still in your best interests even if you completely leave morality and integrity out of it. It's also classed as business. And will become a much less successful one if people stop believing in the essential purity of the product. Not that it's perfectly pure, but that basically the outcomes are not manipulated. Lose that the people will go elsewhere for what they classify as entertainment.

Oh, if your argument is that the NFL shouldn't be in bed with gambling, I'd say that's fair enough. But your argument that when it looks bad people start to lose faith, I would question. The strong human urge to find a conspiracy where there ain't one so they can feel sophisticated and in the know means there are constant waves of people losing faith even when things don't look bad. As for coaches doing something stupid ... does it cause people to doubt? Sure. Again, people love to believe in conspiracies. Has there ever been a game in the history of the NFL, or organized sports really, where a coach didn't do something sub-par? No. They're humans. Humans aren't perfect. They operate with logical flaws (see Kahnemann and Tversky if you have the slightest doubt on this. They got a Nobel showing how humans consistently work with bad assumptions and biases). And that's not even looking at panic, at the effect of hormones and so on) and expecting anyone to consistently maximize their chances under pressure is simply unreasonable. People make mistakes. Every day. You can't eliminate them. You have to try to minimize them, but even the most successful and the smartest will make mistakes. And one of those biases is that conspiracies are behind everything. Look how many 9/11 truthers and Sandy Hook truthers and folks that find the Illuminati behind everything there are. Look at Joe Rogan. He's a smart guy but he simply loves the idea of conspiracies and will twist himself into logical pretzels to allow himself to believe in them and to believe that he knows better than mainstream science. Look at the Atlantis nuts and the archeology crazies he invites on. People will believe nutsy stuff whether it makes sense or not. People will believe anything. They'll believe that a human being making a mistake proves a conspiracy when actually a human being making a mistake proves he's a human being.

Yes, morality, but that's far from the only thing. Understanding of your best interest would stop it. Good business sense would stop it. Having a clue would stop it. For the league, anyway. Motive absolutely would stand in the way, unless you've got a person who's in some way completely cracked. And again, that's not the league. They're making oceans of cash from the system, risking those oceans of cash will absolutely be balanced against the short-term benefits. They're motivated, alright. To make sure things continue as they are. Yes, individuals who aren't receiving money from the golden goose might be motivated. But not the league.

It hasn't. The idea is nuts, seriously nuts. It's not a mistake that if Ross said this (I agree that it sounds plausible to me) that his coach turned him down. It's directly against the career interests of the coaches and players. Nobody can fire Ross, unless this becomes so believable the other owners get together and force him out). Whereas for players and coaches, being fired is by far the likeliest outcome, and you're judged by your film and your results. Could a gambler pay off a ref? Sure, it could happen in any sport. But the NFL do it? No. It just doesn't make any sense. Refs are also judged by their tape. And these things tend to come out, and jobs are lost with even the suspicion. It's directly against the NFL's interests to take the slightest risk to the golden multi-billion dollar apparently immortal goose for a shot at a smaller payday with a decent chance of killing that goose.

The most hilarious attack on Edmunds from his haters is ... well, all of it, really. But if I had to pick one thing, it would be how the haters all think they're way smarter and know more than McDermott and everyone who sees the game plans, is in the locker room, sees the practices. They all love the guy, but the haters think they're way smarter. Hint: they're not.

Is yours confirmed? I'd like to see the link on this. I doubt you will be able to produce anything, but I'm willing to learn if you can. And no, I don't think Beane would necessarily say that Allen was the #1 player on our board. Sometimes he says that kind of thing, and other times he doesn't. What you've got there, so far, is a pure guess.

W/ our cap situation, it'll have to be someone cheap. Most if not all of these guys will be out of our price range. We may get one on a one-year deal, but we need to develop a long term Frank Reich guy.

Sensational. They still need to keep trying to improve, as does every team. But this is a great GM with a great coach and an elite QB. That's major-league terrific!! Doesn't make me feel any better right now. Still feels awful. But we came through the drought. This is vastly, massively better.

BWAH ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! Oh, you are so precious. This is just sweet and cute.

Dennison, for one. I can't speak for anyone else, but I cried.

Makes sense.

Unless you're the GM, what you have here is a guess, and one that doesn't make much sense. There are a bunch of cases, Tomlin at Pittsburgh for one, where the team was zeroed in on one guy, but brought in another guy for an interview, including some Rooney Rule interviews and some not, and the new guy blew them away and got the job. It happens. It's a possibility at every interview, including interviews where there's zero expectation of success. Another one happened in a case where Daboll was expected to be hired. As Hapless pointed out above, Daboll thought he had the job with the Chargers last year. They thought he had it too. But they'd scheduled Staley for an interview, and he knocked their socks off. It's far from the commonest outcome, but it happens. This might not be the most sad and pathetic strawman I've ever seen on these boards. On the other hand, it might. You know up there where you said "We get it"? Based on this post, you very clearly don't. Because your attempt to sum up his point was so far off-point as to end up saying far more about you than it did about him.

Yup, piling up in the manure piles inside the heads of three or so sad little trolls.

Without the slightest bit of doubt. Recency bias Fallacy of composition Negativity bias Loss aversion All logical fallacies that tie into this overreaction. Doesn't mean we should ignore it, of course. It was bad. But yeah, we're overreacting.

Yup. If you call this year's Von Miller and this year's Odell Beckham elite, as the OP does, we've got a few more who'd qualify, starting with Oliver, Dion ...

So you mean that we are an idiot unless we're all in on over-the-hill used-to-be-elite talents? Yeah, um, no, that's just you confusing an opinion with a fact. Those two weren't the reason they are in the SB. Yes, elite talent matters. But what you give up for it matters too. As does fit, financial details, how they fit your team's window, whether they'll take snaps away from guys you'll be developing, and a whole bunch of other stuff in this very complicated system. And again, those two aren't elite.