Thurman#1

No, that was NOT Watson who was 4 - 12. It was the Houston Texans. And if you put Allen on a crappy team, that team also might go 4 - 12, particularly if their last coach had as thoroughly dynamited the team's morale and self-belief as O'Brien did in Texas. Wins are indeed the most important statistic, of course. But they are a team statistic, not a QB statistic. Blaming Watson for the Texans having the 30th best defense in the league last year is just butt-headed. You evaluate a QB by how well or poorly he plays, period. I think Allen's better than Watson, but you can't tell it by wins, which are affected by stuff like whether kickers hit field goals or whether RBs fumble or whether an OLB drops an INT right in his breadbasket. You decide who the best QB is by looking at who played QB better. It ain't rocket science.

Glad we found something to agree on. That "first we swapped firsts and then we gave them this," was nonsense, pretending one transaction was actually two. It was purely a move for spin, to make a trade that looked bad from instant one sound a bit better.

That's concerning, about Basham. I'd sort of generally hoped he would be a good fit. We don't have to jettison Murphy. He's not under contract. Me, I hope they get that DE FA from Cincy, Carl Lawson, if they like him as much as I do with a quick bit of research. He seems like he'd be a good bookend with Hughes.

Well said. It's been a long time since that team looked headed in the right direction.

Just precise. If you get it, then fair enough. See you around the boards.

I understand. People get easily confused when they're trying to insist that a trade is actually two separate transactions, a swap and then a separate thing that they're giving away. I'll be glad to teach you. First, we did not give up anything for Sammy Watkins. We picked Sammy Watkins in the draft. Now, we did indeed trade up to get the 4th pick. With which we then picked Sammy. What did we give up to get the 4th pick? Since "give up" is a synonym for "swap away," for "bestow," for "surrender," not to mention "cede," "yield," "hand over" and dozens more, there is only one correct answer here. Cleveland gave up the 2014 #4. And Buffalo gave up the 2014 #9 and the 2015 #19 and the 2015 #115. If you doubt for one instant that we gave up those three picks, all you have to do is to check whether we retained them after the trade. We did not. Because we had given them all up. Just as Cleveland gave up the 2014 #4. No other picks were involved. There is only one possible correct answer here.

No, we need - desperately - to bring in four or five guys in the draft who are real contributors, this year. You don't trade away your third in a year like this. Your fifth or sixth or seventh, maybe. But not your third. A contributor is a guy who contributes, who adds something. If we'd had another contributor to rush the passer, or an extra contributor who was a CB with serious speed to allow us to play man-to-man effectively, or a few more things we could have used, that absolutely would have made us a tougher match for the Chiefs.

"Give up," when applied to a trade, refers to everything you have to surrender to get what you're trading for. If you trade a 1st and a 3rd for a higher first, you're giving up the first and the third. Which they won't do this year. Too many needs and too little cap money to solve many needs by FA. It always cracks me up when people try to spin a trade as if it's two separate trades, like, "See, what we'll do is we'll trade first rounders." "Oh, well, that's terrific. we'll be thrilled to do that." "Yeah, but wait, this is actually two trades. The first part of the trade is the swap. But then as a second trade, we'll give you nothing, and you will give us a third. So when it comes to the phrase 'give up,' we'll only be giving up a 3rd." "Um, what? You mean you don't want to give us the lower 1st?" "No, we'll want the lower 1st and the 3rd." "OK, we are willing to give up a 1st and a 3rd." "No, we want to do two separate trades, a swap of the 1sts and then a separate trade ... the 3rd rounder for nothing." "Um, what the frack are you talking about?" That has no basis in reality, or any form of linguistics . The trade you're suggesting is that one side gives up a higher 1st and the other side gives up a lower 1st and a 3rd. Pretending otherwise is spin, and frankly it's ineffective spin.

Fascinating. Great stuff, Bill. I see a few doubting they'd go CB in the first, but I wouldn't be surprised at all by CB, Edge or a physical OL as their three biggest needs, with three or four others in play if the BPA is obvious at that position.

Fair enough. Some of those guys will probably work out. Not all of the ones that do, though, will be as good as Matt Milano. The guy I was replying to said we could easily replace him in the 3rd. Will Jabril Cox be in the 3rd where we pick? Bron Browning? And for the ones who will be available, will they be as good as Milano, or close? If we're lucky, there may be one guy who would satisfy the rules Beane Bandit laid down, "you find guys like him in the 3rd round every year for way less money." You don't. If you're very lucky, there's one. And he's not likely to make the difference early that Milano made this year when he was in. You hit the button on the nose, though, when you say, "in an ideal cap year..." Yeah, again, we're going to lose guys we'd rather keep, and not be able to bring in guys we'd like to bring in. IMO losing Milano would hurt. A lot.

I want us to draft a pass rusher, myself. Or bring in one. Other than that, Matt Milano would be my #1 priority. But fair enough that people have different priorities. We're going to be sacrificing players we would rather not. That's the way it is.

He's not a transformational one? And yet the team was transformed when he came back, they really were. Transformational is exactly the right word to highlight what Matt Milano does for this team. He makes the whole defense a lot better. Transformational, precisely. Now, is he a Khalil Mack, a Von Miller or a Za'Darius Smith? No. But he's transformational. And the idea that he's easily replaceable is ridiculous.

First, no, that's not nearly $40 million. You're leaving out dead cap entirely. Second, if they cut three DLs, they will only have to bring in another one or two in FA to replace the ones they don't replace in the draft in the first two rounds or so, and that will chew up money. And third, there are presently about 40 - 45 guys on the roster who stand a chance of being on the final 53. We will have to spend more money on guys like a #2 QB whether it's Barkley or not, on a punter whether it's Bojo or not and on and on. And fourth, our draft class will cost about $6 to $7 mill. There seem to be about 50 posts saying this same thing each day - just cut the same list of guys and we'll be swimming in it - as if it's a new idea or makes sense. And it's just not true. They've got cap troubles. They will absolutely cut and/or re-negotiate most of those guys you mentioned, but when they do so, their troubles will not be over.

Nonsense. There are not that many cover LBs as good as Milano in the league period, much less third round and below. Which is the very reason he seems likely to get big money. This is a money-related decision. If COVID hadn't nose-dived the cap, we would have kept him, and it's still possible we might. It'll hurt the team to lose him, but cap constraints force teams to try to find the least bad way to distribute scarce funds. Milano may end up leaving, but Beane already said that they want him and they've told Milano that. They want him because they're a lot better with him on the field. But the cap limit isn't a voluntary thing. If he goes, it'll reduce the effectiveness of this D.

At one time, perhaps. EDIT: Ah, Gunner said it better than I could.

Cool story. A lot of "process-like" stuff and "sustainable winning culture" so if you don't like that jargon, you'd better steer clear. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/02/18/ron-rivera-washington-football-rebuild/ I searched "Rivera" and only found the "cancer-free" thread. If this has already been posted, feel free to cancel it. Side note: I really thought we might pick Terry McLaurin a draft or two ago. He comes off well here. Some excerpts: "As it is for Buffalo, Washington’s notion of the “right fit” among players includes a heavy lean on character, combined with the right skills for the right role. It requires asking questions to gain a clear picture of a player’s competitive drive, leadership, work ethic and so on. During interviews with draft prospects, Rivera will use game film not only to test a player’s knowledge of the game but also his accountability. If the tape shows the player was at fault on a play, did he deflect blame when explaining what happened? Or did he own it?" ... and ... "Washington’s roster last season was formed with many of the same ideals that Buffalo had. This meant prioritizing building through the draft while finding some less-heralded free agents, such as tight end Logan Thomas and running back J.D. McKissic, to fill key roles. They spent bigger to add a defensive leader in cornerback Kendall Fuller and moved on from veterans such as Trent Williams and Adrian Peterson who they believed didn’t fit or were impeding the growth of young talent." How long has it been since people wanted to ask for advice from our FO?

I don't know if they pick this guy, but when we faced KC, we couldn't face them with much man to man, we just didn't have the speed. This might help us match up with them better. Of course, so would a pass rusher.

They're projecting his 40 time as somewhere around 4.7. He has lost weight since then, but if the projections are close, you want someone faster for big nickel. But who knows. Maybe he'll be faster than they think.

Sure, it's not required to keep the lights on. But that's not their only goal. They've got a ton of other things they want to accomplish, and keeping it low will help them accomplish several of those. Putting this whole problem in the rear view mirror as soon as possible, for instance. If they keep it low this year, they won't have to borrow as much from next year or other future years. Keeping expenses down in a bad year - just generally - is not a bad idea. It's a complex question. With both the union and the owners having an iron in the fire. Earlier Schefter said that he'd heard many at the league say they wanted it at $180 or $181M. What we're hearing now fits right in with that. That's still my best guess, though all any of us have is guesses.

Nothing wrong with expectations. Don't bet the rent, though. Hell, don't be the lunch money. Hopefully if the vaccines come out on time in huge numbers and if we can get people to take the vaccines, and if there are no major mutations that the vaccines won't work against, they might have full stadiums next year. Equally, though, they might not. All we have is guesswork.

Thugs, no. Tough guys, duh.

The difference being that on Josh Allen's points, Josh Allen and the offense drove all the way down the field and made those points happen, whereas on Tyler Bass's points, Josh Allen and the offense drove us all the way down the field and made those points happen before the kicker performed a feat that even the worst of them succeed at around 70% of the time. There's a huge huge difference And no, Bass absolutely did NOT "single-handedly" win us any games, any more than Josh Allen did. But Allen was vastly more valuable in contributing to those wins than the kicker was. I hear you, you're being sarcastic, but some people really think this way. Yup.

$942K cap hit in 2021. It is a lot, but won't hurt them this year. Is he good? I don't really even know. EDIT: Oh, and this is an extension, not a contract. Even less onerous. So he's actually under contract now for 6 years and $22.9 M. That's no problem at all. Reasonable value.

You say you guarantee some things, and what you have there is certainly not a guarantee. Buy the team and you'll be in position to have power over the situation and at that point you can guarantee things. What you have there is a guess. A guess which might be correct. But a guess. And you really kind of did suggest things that would be blowing up the defense. Our coach, who is wildly successful at putting a very good defense on the field year after year, is committed to a platoon at the D-line. You say he shouldn't. Fine, again, buy yourself a football team and put your ideas into play. But he's not going to change because there's a guy on the internet who thinks he should. We're going to need 8 DLs who will all play very significant snaps. They're likely to cut one or very possibly two. Three might be stretching it, but it's a possibility, but more than that? Please. But the guys who are cut will have to be replaced somehow and that will cost money. Your idea about cutting many and thus having tons of money available for outsize spending isn't realistic, money-wise. If they cut a lot, they'll have to replace a lot.

I have to admit, you live in a different world than I do if you consider the $7.5M in dead cap debt we'd acquire by cutting Jefferson, Addison and Butler as "little to nothing." Perhaps you're independently wealthy? Or perhaps you're thinking of a year like 2018 when we were tens of millions below the cap. This year, to me, that's not small money, and the money we'd have to spend to replace them also won't be all that small. I do expect one or two of them to go, possibly even three, or some re-negotiations. But it won't open up as much as you're thinking, and we already need that money to re-sign guys like Corey Bojorquez, Andre Roberts, Levi Wallace, Ike Boettger, Yeldon, and Matt Barkley (or their replacements who would cost pretty much the same) not to mention Feliciano, Darryl Williams and Matt Milano, not to mention the $5 - $7 mill or so we'll need to sign our rookie draft class. We won't re-sign all of these folks. But if we lose many we'll just have to spend the money to replace them.