Thurman#1

It wasn't "all because of how they played the Chiefs offense from a scheme standpoint." That surely was a factor, but so was the fact that they did a good job rushing the passer, that Mahomes had a bad game, that Watkins fumbled a ball away in the red zone ... The Chiefs didn't appear to have much of a sense of urgency and were noticeably off in this game that was delayed by a COVID outbreak. When they needed points near the end, they got them, and they had no reason to fear that the Pats were going to score enough to win. The Chiefs were ahead the whole game, though the Pats kept it close.

The Buffalo Bisons would beg to disagree.

You think the Browns are tier one? Interesting. I hadn't really followed them this offseason. Wow. Looks like an interesting season this year. Glorious to be real players in the playoff picture in Buffalo. Not a pro hoops fan at all, but this has been a fantastic story.

Oh, nonsense. It is useful having you here spewing this stuff. It shows how how nutty some people get on Tremaine. The tape doesn't "show he played poorly last year." That's utter nonsense. The Bills were almost universally expected to exercise his fifth-year option for around $12.7M. The reason this expectation was so very widespread was simply that the tape shows just the opposite of that. It shows a guy who is playing very well. Not elite. But playing very well after the injury stopped holding him back so much the first seven weeks or so. It's just as widespread an opinion (again, simply because it's sensible) that with the way he's played so far, in no way does he deserve the kind of contract discussed in the OP. He'd need to be a top three or four LB to deserve that kind of money, and he's not there yet, nor is it sure that he ever will get there.

Sorry. You're right, it doesn't read so clear. My fault. Bad writing.

Not really worth saying, IMO, about their teams being bad. Both guys are indeed on teams that finished way below .500. Signing those guys to those contracts are probably somewhere around the 30th most relevant reasons for those teams being bad. And I disagree those guys are overpaid. I mean, yeah, in the sense that most good players signing second contracts are overpaid by the standards of the year that contract was agreed on, sure. Most good players sign contracts that rank them higher in terms of money than their level of play would indicate. Equally, though, in the later years they're often bargains as the cap continues to rise. That's what both of these guys look like. Cunningham is going into his fifth year, he's visibly improving, and his contract was for $14.5M per year. A year or two down the line and this contract will probably put him in the 20s or 30s for LBs. It's a very reasonable 2nd contract for a very good player. At $10.75M/yr., Schobert is the 24th highest. Both pretty reasonable, particularly with contracts likely to explode in 2022. Blanket? No. I didn't say everyone does this, or anything like it. It's a group and it's wildly obvious who they are. Ridiculous? If only it were so. It's unfortunately right on the mark for many on here. Around the league he's seen as an excellent player on the rise, though certainly not elite. Here there's a group of people who seem to pick two or three guys to hate and go at them. He's one of them, for this group. EDIT: Wait, did I misunderstand you? You are the guy who said, "Hate = Truth"? And I'm the one being ridiculous and using blanket statements? Good lord, that qualifies for the rare double face palm. No small achievement.

Yup. A year too late, but totally sensible.

No, not him. As many on here know, I live in Japan. Much older than Fetes as well. And even in my OP, I made it clear that I don't agree with all five of his predictions, just that I think they're defensible and worthy of discussion. Anyone who informs himself and has a different opinion than me on that might get disagreement from me, but certainly won't be told that he's wrong, Gugny is simply wrong and unwilling enough to spend a few seconds fact-checking. I do have very little respect for that, it's true. It's a popular modern view ... I said it, therefore it must be true and I don't need to check no stinking facts. So much of the problem in our modern discussion is driven by this deep-seated belief that because someone has an opinion he thinks it must be correct, and that having uninformed opinions is something that is actually worth anything.

Agreed on both. Hopefully these moves won't cause major problems but I do expect a down-tick in both areas. Robert in particular was under-rated for his contributions last year. He really did an excellent job.

I get it completely that you don't know why it doesn't work, and can't ever understand until you listen to the video. It would require you to listen to the entire first twelve seconds of the video for you to figure out why it doesn't work. But doing that much research appears beyond you. Better to just defend an opinion about which you are completely uninformed. But it's clear at this point that popping off with opinions about which you have zero information and no inclination to learn is your pattern. You don't know me, but you think you understand me. You don't know the video but you think your opinion about it is worth something. Things are awesome for me right now, actually. First day of a four-day weekend, and I just finished reading my kid a part of a Ramona book as a bedtime story. But no, clearly you know more about me than I do, or so you think. Your idea that I'm uninformed is wrong, and provedly so. I've seen the video. You haven't. I'm in the process of living my life. You haven't an ounce of insight into the video or my life and are yet willing to think your opinion about either is worth something. It is kind of amusing, though sad, but I've been amused enough at this point. Your feets have failed you now, and when it comes to informing yourself to even the slightest degree, you ain't Willin'. You had the chance to take the high road but instead you went Lowell. But the Feat references don't work here. And you still have no earthly idea why your joke doesn't work and aren't willing to check your facts as to why. Anyone interested enough to read the past few posts has seen that very clearly. 'Nuff said.

He said "So I see Emmanuel Sanders catching 65, 70 balls (1000 yards and 70 balls would be 14.2 YPC) and a couple of them being 65+ yarders for touchdown." That's maybe warm, but it isn't boiling. If he gets two long balls like that, he could easily average 14.2. When you look at his last few QBs, they are the 2020 version of Brees and Taysom Hill, half a year of Garoppolo and four or five years of Denver's carousel of mediocrity with Flacco, Lock, Keenum, Siemian, Osweiler and Lynch. He did get Manning in his last couple of years, and though Manning wasn't exactly throwing downfield a lot at that point, he made Sanders look sensational and he ended up with Y/Rs of 13.9 and 14.9. Is it really so unreasonable to think Sanders might do better and get longer throws with Josh Allen throwing to him than the motley group he's dealt with since Manning retired? I don't think so.

Yes. Uninformed because you feel the need to talk about something you aren't willing to inform yourself about. And the fact that you seem proud of that proves my point. You are off the mark, that's not an opinion, it's a fact. Your little joke doesn't work, and you're too determinedly uninformed to ever know why. My day's fine, thanks, though I am watching something sad on a message board.

I don't know. Hot but not boiling. There is more than one way to take the top off a defense. We generally think of amazing speed, and Sanders doesn't really have that, but route running can do it sometimes as well. I mean, Sanders' longest catch last year was 51 yards. The year before that he was on two teams, and his longest with Enver was 53 and with SFO was 75. 75. The year before that, 64. Going back you then have 38, 64, 75, 48, and then 55 though in his first three years he was less of a long threat with Pittsburgh, putting up a 37, a 32 and a 35. I'd say he's a guy who sometimes takes the top off of defenses. He didn't say he thought Sanders would regularly be open deep or anything like that. He did say he thought maybe Sanders would have a few deeper catches. I don't think that's all that unlikely. IMO teams will be less worried about that than they would have been with John Brown, and for good reason, but Sanders manages it sometimes. I can imagine him getting a 1000 yard season here. I'd need more than straight-up odds to bet it, but I don't think it's such a bad bet for a guy who got 726 last year from Brees, whose arm was greatly limited in terms of distance. And for the record, I'd pick Sanders over Davis if asked to predict who'll have the most yards. I think it could go either way, but my guess is Sanders being a better route runner pays off with more targets. You uninformed but still mouthy, bro? Um, yup. Again you won't know why you're off the mark without watching, but you are. I'm mouthy too, but at least I try to only mouth off when I can have an informed opinion. If I don't have enough interest to inform myself, I don't comment.

Not wanting to give somebody a click is totally fair. Commenting on the thing you haven't watched, not so much. And it is exactly your LIttle Feat reference that doesn't work, and precisely because you didn't watch the video, though you'll maybe never know why.

Yes, a first alternate in 2019. Meaning best after Darius Leonard and Hightower, in his 2nd year. Top two last year, with an injury and with real problems at 1-tech, and still, losing to Darius Leonard and beating guys like Zach Cunningham and Schobert is not unimpressive. That is in no way anywhere close to what happened with Tyrod. I certainly agree that so far Edmunds hasn't yet earned a contract like that, though. Without question. But people consistently saying ridiculous things like "he's an average starter," and talking about "his bad play," are nuts and show he's one of the designated scapegoats among this fanbase.

That's certainly a very reasonable guess. A fact, though? No. So you didn't even listen to him introduce himself, hunh? Fair enough, but then why comment?

I agree with most of your post here, but there's no comparison between Tyrod making the Pro Bowl and Edmunds doing it. Tyrod made the Pro Bowl twice, as a sixth alternate and as a fourth alternate. That's not what happened with Edmunds. Again, there's just no comparison there.

The reason some on here call critiques of Edmunds hate is because so much of the criticism of Edmunds has been over the top and unreasonable, and you've been leading the charge on that. Not least with this insulting post, that as usual goes over the top and unreasonable on Edmunds. Anyone who says "Hate = truth" understands neither. As for the OP, sure Edmunds will be after a contract like this. You'd expect him to be "after" a contract like that. He certainly hasn't earned it yet, and he's made it clear that he expects more of himself. This thread is a year too early. In a year he either will have put himself into the conversation for a contract like this, or he won't have.

I don't agree with all of them, but they're defensible and thoughtful. 1) Josh Allen will lead the Bills in rushing yards 2) Emmanuel Sanders and Diggs will both reach 1000 yards ... and three more, including hopeful predictions on Hollister, Epenesa and Levi Wallace. Don't want to steal his content. But all seem very possible to me.

There's no logic to that argument. They do play the same position. But yes, it is indeed about making room for the 90. Making room for the 90 and no more is something they have to do. That's why when they bring in a guy and they've got 90 they will have to let someone go beforehand. There is no limit on how many DLs or DTs you can carry on the roster. Which is why if you want to bring in a guy at a position and you would want to cut another guy at that position to make room, if you have less than 90 on the roster, you would wait till your guy has signed the contract before you would cut the old guy. There is absolutely zero connection between cutting Nazair Jones and bringing in another DT, not unless there are 90 guys already on the roster. And there are not. It's this simple, they cut Nazair Jones at that time because they wanted to cut Nazair Jones at that time.

No, and the question doesn't make particular sense. And ... proof you'd put as little thought into this as it appeared. Jeez.

We're absolutely real quick to the ball. Milano and Edmunds are fast, it's a huge feature for both, and they get more of the tackles than most. Nobody on this D is a Deion Sanders or a Tyreek Hill, but this D is filled with guys who are quick and fast. Fast, heady, multi-faceted, system-based, team-centered. That's how it's constructed. That is why they need Lotulelei in the middle, he (or if he's not in there then Zimmer or whoever else plays 1-tech) clogs things up and eats two on inside runs and that gives the Bills the gap advantage. I don't think we'll ever be the smash-mouth D many here would love to see. They've built this D to defend the pass first, but still be solid against the run. And that's what makes sense these days against modern offenses. We're tough but not slobber-knockers.

Short's more of a 3-tech. He's a penetrator, not a space-eater. Got a nice first step. It's theoretically possible that they could plug him in as a pass-rushing 1-tech on 3rd downs, I guess. But IMO they've got guys to do that, particularly if they occasionally platoon Basham and Rousseau inside on pass rush downs. I think he fits this scheme as a 3-tech like a glove, but not as a 1-tech. Money, injuries and the crowd at the position are all issues. I doubt it. We'll see.

We can be sure that Nazair Jones and the Kawann Short news had nothing to do with each other. Cutting Jones put us three players below the limit instead of two. And Jones was a vet min guy. The Bills get no advantage whatsoever in picking up Short from cutting Jones.

He may well be an upgrade, but not so much of one, IMO. A healthy Brown was a very good route runner and his speed put DBs on tenterhooks every play. Agreed, thanks, OP.