Thurman#1

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.

You don't quite seem to get this, but what you're saying is that McD is going to leave behind his system and go to yours. And good luck on that. He doesn't "like" to have a rotation. It's how his defense works and always has, including his time in Carolina. You don't like it? Fine. But you'd better learn to deal with it, unless you can persuade the Pegulas to fire McD and put you in his place.

First, that would open up nothing like $35M. You're leaving dead cap out entirely. In fact, cutting Star (which makes no sense in the first place because if we found out one thing this year it's that he's extremely valuable) would actually cost more than it would save. Second, cutting Hughes doesn't make sense. He's the only guy getting consistent pressure and he's doing it at a very high rate. They will not do this, nor should anyone with an ounce of sense. Nor will they ask him to take a pay cut. Extend his contract and re-negotiate some money down the road with him, without asking him to take a pay cut? Yeah, possible. That could save us maybe $3 mill or so. Third, if you cut all those guys, you do open up some cap space .... and create holes which if you want to fill them only with players just as good, no improvement at all, would cost pretty much all of that cap space to replace them. They'll do some cutting. But they're very unlikely to be able to bring in any more than one of the guys you are thinking of, and even one would probably be difficult. It would prevent us from re-signing guys like Milano, Feliciano and Darryl Williams, which would leave yet more holes. And it would eliminate any sense of continuity going forward, in a season when we are likely to yet again have problem with getting enough off-season workouts in. Are one or two of those guy likely to go? Sure. Not Star or Hughes, but yeah one or two of the others. It won't open up enough to bring in tons of high-priced FAs, though.

No, you're not. You're going extremely far out of your way to blame Biden for something which - as yet - he has virtually zero control over. You're trying to give political meaning to something which at this point is biologically and mathematically determined. As time passes, Biden's policies will begin to have a larger and larger share of blame/credit for the change in infection rates. As yet, they have not had much effect, nor could they have. Nobody should give Trump all the blame for the deaths that happened during his administration. Nobody. It's a pandemic. Pandemics by their nature spread like crazy. That's what they do. But Trump's whole whole deal about how it's not important and how masks weren't necessary absolutely over time had vast effects on the numbers. Which is why the U.S. had far far worse numbers than we have here in Japan where I live, which had a fast start on the virus from many visitors from China, but which then had a massive effort to wear masks and act safe show huge effects. And that's despite the fact that Japan has much more population density about ten times higher than ours. Japan is nearly exactly the size of Montana. So in the size of Montana they have a population of 126 million, about 40% of the population of the U.S. Know how many COVID cases they've had? 416K, total. Just short of 7,000 deaths. And frankly their leadership was solid and decent, not great. Whereas our President actually told people this wasn't a big deal, don't worry about masks, and come on to my large public events without masks. Again, nobody should blame Trump for the whole situation. It was always going to be bad. But he does deserve a large share of the blame, as his policies didn't effectively fight it As Biden's policies change the federal government's response and the national situation, the situation will more and more be able to be correlated to his actions. As of yet they realistically can't. Infection rates are going down, very significantly right now, but that's not to Biden's credit, the rate had been going down since about Jan. 7th. As time passes, we'll see his policies effect things signficantly. We have not seen that yet. That's a statistical, a biological and a logical fact. Blaming Biden, at this point, for the deaths that have taken place since his inauguration is like blaming a dock for getting wet as the tide comes in. That chart is purely an attempt at political spin.

No, just the opposite. The best-run teams don't find a way to do things and then settle down and never change. They're in a constant state of self-evaluation and adaptation. They're adapting to changing conditions and to their own successes and mistakes and what those can teach them about themselves. It is exactly the best-run teams who will succeed best in this new environment. You're certainly right when you say this doesn't make things easier. Correct. It makes things harder. But difficult situations are exactly when organizations that are run well show themselves as excellent. The best teams are precisely those that adapt best to changes and situations. Make it harder to adapt to situations ... and the teams that are best at it will be more successful.

Right, blame the guy who inherited a raging pandemic for the people who die from catching it after a day that, as far as the disease is concerned, is completely inconsequential? Ask a doctor if that makes sense. He'll tell you it doesn't. And that'll show the obvious ... that this is a purely political thread, a desperate attempt at a spin job, that doesn't show anything related to Joe Biden. Now, a few months down the road, if Biden's attempts at fixes don't work ... that'll be the time to start blaming him. But blaming him for these numbers you're counting above is like when a guy drops a safe off a 50 story building and you blame the guy on the third floor who notices it's falling and tries to get the people on the street below to move out of the way in time. Trump inherited a handful of cases and turned it into millions, telling people this wasn't anything to worry about. Biden inherited millions ... and we don't know yet how well he'll do.

The Chiefs had "an offensive line that was missing four starters — right guard Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, who opted out before the season, along with left guard Kelechi Osemele, right tackle Mitchell Schwartz and left tackle Eric Fisher, who were lost to injuries. Lucas Niang, a third-round offensive line draft pick from TCU, also opted out before the season." https://www.kshb.com/sports/road-to-repeat/chiefs-offensive-never-gets-untracked-in-super-bowl-lv-loss Their OL problems were huge in this game. And when your starting OTs are gone, it puts more pressure on your guards, and nobody can help them the way they could if the tackles weren't needing help with the outside rush. And for whatever reason, Mahomes was moving well against us, but limping and limited against the Bucs. That made a difference too, made it easier for the Bucs D. You say the Chiefs were stopping the run with their front four, and that's not true, it was their front seven. And we saw Mathieu make a bunch of tackles on run plays in that game. And we did that as well, though not as efficiently as the Bucs did. And again, losing Lotulelei was huge. The rest of our front four were smaller guys. People have screamed and moaned about Lotulelei for years here, because they didn't get his role in the defense. We saw this year how much it affected the LBs with Star not in there. I'm not saying our DL is OK and doesn't need work. Not at all. I am saying that we need another pass rusher, at least, and that getting Lotulelei back will help, and that the Bucs DL was in a much better situation with the extra tackle out and with Mahomes not as able to move.

After the first six games our defense played well even against the good teams, doing very well against Arizona (minus the lucky INT), the Steelers, the Niners who were playing really well at that time ... Not good enough to beat KC, of course, but still very good. Despite some very real DL problems, particularly Lotulelei's optout and the lack of a pass rusher on the other side. A lot of the success that the Tampa defense had may well have come down to the Chiefs OL injuries. It would have been interesting to see what happened if they'd been healthy. I'm happier to see KC lose, though.

Looking at the Super Bowl games - in isolation - is nearly always greatly misleading. Individual games are deeply affected by matchups, but bad bounces, by the way the refs call pass interference, by stuff. The 2018 Patriots were the 21st ranked D. They were better than that, Belichick's always been a bend-but-don't-break guy, but they weren't great. And this year's Bucs were a very good defense but not elite. Not sensational at 6th. I don't especially buy Brady as the GOAT, it's not all that obvious how to compare guys like Unitas, like Otto Graham to modern guys, but he's certainly one of the best of all time. Unfortunately. Very glad to get him out of the division.

Oh, please. Can we give up on the idea of trading up in that way? Particularly this year., Beane trades up ... but only one way ... if he only has to give up a late-round pick. He tells us how much he values draft picks. Then after each draft he says it again. Yet every year people pretend we're likely to make a draft trade-up that's big. He's never traded away a lot to trade up with the one exception of the year that he assembled all the draft capital to trade up for a QB. And he particularly isn't going to do that in a year when our lousy cap situation means we can't bring in a lot of FAs to fill holes. Not gonna happen. Now, would he trade up to #26 or something if he had to give up maybe a 4th or a 5th? Frankly I doubt it this year, but at least this is the kind of thing that he does. The draft is absolutely crucial for us this year. We're going to have to get guys who can contribute their first year. We'll need our first three picks to do that. I'd love Kyle Pitts, too. Don't get me wrong. But it's not going to happen this year unless he drops like a stone.

Eli Manning's passer rating topped out at 77.0 in his first three years. Many wanted to label him a bust. Steve McNair. Guys like that are out there. And the only thing that's substantively different about a guy picked in the top ten from a guy picked later is the perception of that guy. Top ten guys may get wasted more profligately, put to start on bad teams when they'd be better off taking the Drew Brees / Patrick Mahomes route. And then it's also pretty fair to say that their development years are treated as their ceiling more than for guys drafted a bit later. People say, "hey, we've seen this guy for three years, we know who he is," which many times just isn't true. Guys like Brees, Alex Smith, Eli and many others take longer to develop sometimes than would be ideal. A guy like Jake Delhomme, on the other hand, because he's not thrown right away to the wolves, gets to sit and learn for a while and can become a pretty good quarterback later in his career without the "top ten" perception forcing him in too early. Same for Aaron Rodgers. Brett Favre. A very significant number of bust top tens, if treated the same way, might well have become good QBs. Or if given a second chance might have proven themselves later.