Thurman#1

On what you're saying there about Garrett, I think it's a lot more likely than you're assuming. Not that it'll happen, it could clearly go either way. But what Cleveland wants for him is kinda beside the point unless they're willing to keep him on the roster when he's made it clear he'll be willing to make himself annoying. Garrett has a no-trade clause, meaning he'll be able to say no to any trade the Browns make if he doesn't like it. He'll probably only be willing to accept - what??? - six to maybe 10 teams, and many of those might not be in a great position to be in the running. The Browns will have to take the best offer they can get from a team Garrett likes, and he can be as choosy as he likes. The Browns won't be in a position to get what they ask for. But yeah, he'll want an adjustment to his contract. Might be willing to wait a year, though, in the right circumstances. I don't know whether the Bills will want to do this, or whether they'll find the prices acceptable. But I think it's not wildly unlikely if they're genuinely interested in taking a shot on him at his age.

Yeah, I think it's fair to say that $15M is out of whack. Yeah, if you compare him to WRs, he looks cheap, but that's only because it's a fault comparison when you put an RB against a WR. WRs are worth more. Compare a WR's yards per target to any RB's yards per touch. It's not close. Cook put up 1267 yards, but it took him 258 runs and 38 targets to do that. Any of the WRs who got more yards need 258 plus 38 targets to do it? Compare RBs to RBs. He can't pass block all that well, which means they want to replace him in most third down situations. That hurts this offense. I'd like to keep him. But not if it requires them to put him in the top two RBs in AAV. They also made it clear that Keon was playing the last half of the season with wrist problems, which may well have been a broken wrist, though it hasn't been confirmed. There was absolutely a major fall-off after that injury. He lost contested catches at a much higher rate. And contested catches is one of the main things they wanted him for, particularly as a rookie.

Again, this simply isn't true. If you want to argue that it is true, you'd have to say that it's equally true of the Chiefs. The defense has been terrific in the playoffs ... except against the Chiefs. That's the way it goes sometimes when you're up against sensational offenses. Proof? Against one particular offense that they've played four times in the playoffs the Chiefs D has been pretty crappy. Allowed more than 30 points a game against that one offense they saw four times ... the Allen-led Bills, of course. I guess that means the Chiefs D has only had one side of the ball play at or above expectations in their worst games in the playoffs too. Damn, this is what I should have said.

So your evidence that they weren't good enough, to win it is ... that other games went differently? That you think that the Bills only have Allen though that's obviously just wrong, we've had had All-Pros on this team within the last couple of years, and anyone who thinks that this o-line wasn't sensational and a huge reason for the offense's great showing is simply not seeing what's on the screen in front of them. You got nothing. That's not your fault, there is nothing to have. The Eagles did win easily. A crap-ton of that appears to have been that Mahomes just had a crappy day, even when he wasn't under pressure, even early in the game before they'd shown they could get to him. The Eagles had their best game of the year and the Chiefs had their worst. Fact is that the Eagles beat the Chiefs. Know who else did this year? The Bills beat the Chiefs too this year. The Ravens beat us 35-10 this year. Does that mean they're a better team? Oh, wait we beat them in the playoffs. This stuff happens. It doesn't prove anything but who's better on the day. The Bills aren't a team of wussies. If you think they are, I'm sure there's a lot of room left on the Eagles bandwagon. Yeah, it's frustrating as hell. But we were good enough to win. We didn't do it. And yeah, I'm sure you, I and all of us want to see it happen next year.

Again, "can we do it?" is the wrong question. It's a fun thing to look at as a hypothetical, but it's dumb to look at in real time. The fact is, I can afford a Lamborghini Temerario. I can do that. It's fun to think about. But for me to actually buy it would be massively, spectacularly overwhelmingly stupid. The question is simply NOT "Can we do it?" The question is "SHOULD we do it?" Or maybe, "Is doing it a smart use of resources?" And no, it would not be a smart or even slightly unstupid of me to buy a Temerario. Nor would it be smart of us to spend a ton this year with void years and then be greatly limited in who else they could bring in for the next year or two. We know what happens to Beane when he takes a risk and brings in a Von Miller. He ends up with a year like last year when he has to get the cap back under control and get rid of some guys and not be able to bring in guys we'd like to. Bring in Garrett? Maybe. I hope they can do it - in intelligent circumstances - because he would make this defense look completely different. Bring in Garrett and Allen, both old guys who'd cost a lot? With Allen coming off a major injury? I don't see that as being a smart use of resources and I don't think Brandon will either. No, you can't "lower the cap hit to almost nothing." You just can't. You can lower it significantly for this year. But it will all come in in future years. Future years when you're also paying Garrett if you bring him in. Again, yeah, I can buy the Temerario. But it would make my nut too high and I'd have to do things elsewhere that would not be in my best interest. Same with the Bills and the salary cap and the feeling that they can do it so it makes sense. This move doesn't. Particularly for an injured 30 year-old. Oh, and yes, the Eagles did bring in AJ Brown and Darius Slay. Were either of them 30 years old and injured? Slay wasn't a young pup, but he was younger than Allen. And healthy.

That's what I think. With that injury anyway. If healthy, maybe not impossible, but at his age you can't assume a perfect recovery. Yeah, but that would change if you bring in Garrett. Who will require an extension (this year or next at the outside) as he goes into his thirties. Bring in Garrett and you drastically adjust the other pieces you will be able to bring in.

Not all that crazy when four out of those five games were against Pat Mahomes and the Chiefs. Would you agree that the Chiefs defense is pretty good? Well, by this standard they aren't. When they play Josh Allen in the playoffs they allowed more than 30 points per game. It's also questionable that they prioritize the defense first. They prioritize both. One good example is how they put together such a good OL this year

Old and stale, maybe. Still matters, though, and it's still for real. They had fewer injuries this year. But arguably their one most important player on defense, their best CB, was the guy who missed the game. It was big. Still should have won if Josh had had a better first two drives, or if the refs hadn't screwed up that first down call on the tush push, or if our TE had caught that ball on 4th down on the last drive. We were right there, good enough to win. But we didn't.

Yeah, this was a team win, and I don't know if there was a guy who was all that much more valuable than anyone else. And Mahomes appeared off right from the first pass play when he threw behind Kelce with no pressure whatsoever.

Or bust? Haiiiil naw. It'll all depend on the guy and the price. I'd love to get Garrett in particular. But only if it's good value. And I'd disagree that Brandon fails to get elite players early, because he basically never drafts early. It's a lot harder to get elite guys where we usually draft. And costs too much to move up far (Massey-Thaler, for example). Play it as it comes, and I'm hoping it comes so we can get Garrett.

Higher helps. Not as much as it does on a punt, of course. But if the ball is higher it's more affected by the wind and harder to predict for the returner exactly where it'll land. He's got to keep his head up higher and if it's near the goal line he's now got to think about The more the football's momentum is down rather than forward as it approaches the ground, and the less likely he is to be able to get a running start. Will that mean that the second returner might have to be over close yelling to catch it or let it go on plays where it's close-ish to the end zone? Yeah, probably, if it's close, but giving that guy something else to do rather than block is also a slight advantage for the kicking team. You're right, this isn't a huge deal, but IMO it's part of what we'll see, I think. I could be wrong. Time will tell.

IMO the returners will have pretty much the same choices as they did last year. But they will see very different kinds of kicks coming towards them if they pass this new rule, or at least that's the assumption from the NFL, and from me for that matter. They'll be seeing a lot more shorter higher kicks that have to get returned.

It's generally the kicking team not the returning team that makes this decision, by kicking it way the hell out of the end zone. If a TB goes to the 35, we're likely to see kicks that are shorter and higher, landing in the field of play and forcing returns.

As has been pointed out about a million times, and correctly, isn't that the D has been bad in the postseason. It is basically that the D has not been able to stop the Kansas City Chiefs in the postseason. Very few teams have, and the ones that managed it generally Mahomes having a bad day. Right from play one against the Eagles, Mahomes was missing even when not pressured. And Josh is not unaware that the first two drives or so in our game against KC this year he was awful, and that that cost us deeply. I just don't see that kind of attitude surfacing in Josh.

This.

Thanks very much. These days I just can't keep up with the whole league the way I used to. Affordable but good is the type of guy I think we'll have a reasonable chance to bring in. Appreciate it greatly.

Was not expecting that!!! A perfect answer.

Really. Nobody knows yet. There's a possibility they all go right along the trajectory already established. Probably several will. Anyone who thinks that we already know what will happen to all of them is absolutely kidding himself. Some might make huge steps up. No way to know for sure. Much too early. Look at Benford or Taron Johnson or Milano out of hundreds of similar examples. Hell, look at Josh. None looked like an impact playmaker after their first year. Some elite playmakers are already recognizable after their first year. Plenty more are not yet. Kid yourself if it makes you feel better. We just don't know. That's an irritating feeling, which reflect reality.

Much too early.

Milano's low 40 was 4.58. https://draftscout.com/dsprofile.php?PlayerId=127726&DraftYear=2017 But his higher ones were just about what are mentioned there as guesses for Dolac. Too early to know, really, till we start to see actual 40 times rather than informed guesses. I like what little I know about Dolac a lot. Always in the right spot. Good instincts. Tremaine was an excellent pass coverage guy, but more so zone than man. There really isn't a comparison there.

Way way way too early for me to have decided or even narrowed things down. But I'm with Alpha, my ideal would be to trade it in a (reasonably priced) package to get us Garrett or Crosby.

Not really caught up on either guy. Just looking at their production, that's the kind of guy who they could reasonably afford to bring in, it looks like to me. What particularly do you like about each guy, if you don't mind me asking. I don't know either one well at all.

Don't worry about him, he's not coming here.

Undefeated? Dude, please. Yup.

No, just the opposite. When 7 of the top 12 RBs are within the top 14 of 32 playoff teams that indicates success. Not lack of success. Right. Again, that's an indicator of success, not a lack of success. It means that QBs in the top 10 of AAV made the playoffs at higher rates than those below the top 10. Particularly as the two teams in the Super Bowl are both in that list of the top ten QBs in terms of AAV. And three of the four teams in the conference championships. Um, no, he's not missing that in any way shape or form. Of course having good to great WRs helps the most important position on the field. Of course it does. So does having good to great players at every single other position on the field. OLs. RBs. TEs. Punters, who help the QB get better field position. Pass rushers who help get more possessions. EVERY ... POSITION ... ON THE FIELD. RBs help take responsibility off the QB and make things much more difficult on the defense in terms of handling both offensive modes instead of letting them concentrate basically on the passing game. Everyone helps the QB, that's part of it being a team game. You're right, of course, that it's more complicated than a straight causative relationship. It's complex. Some great QBs either have rookie contracts (Daniels) or older cheaper ones that will be updated soon (Josh). Same sort of thing with WRs and RBs, and everyone, really. AAV isn't a perfect gauge of talent. It's a damn good gauge of how positions are valued, though. OP has a very interesting point. Values may start to go down a bit. They won't plummet, but go down in comparison to other positions? Could easily happen. But year after year it's unusual to see true #1s in the Super Bowl. It does happen, including arguably this year with A.J. Brown. But it's unusual. Usually teams that have QBs on second contracts have to cut elsewhere and WRs are usually one of the areas they cut out (see the Chiefs and what they did with Tyreek and his second contract). A spectacular QB can usually get by much much better without a true #1 than can a new QB or a more average QB.