Thurman#1

He is a genius. That doesn't imply that he's perfect, though.

Nah, more thanks to the NFL allowing competitive disadvantages to go forward. Our governor is making sense in this. No guarantee he or any other politician will continue to do so, but so far he's doing fine.

No. And it's not political BS. It appears to be a slow march towards more justice. It is more complicated than that, but overall things are moving in a good direction. The season will develop just fine as stories develop, assuming the season can continue completely. See ya.

Yup. IMO we're smart enough to understand why public gatherings of any kind aren't a good idea right now.

While it surely wasn't all about cap (they didn't get rid of him till he started missing buses), Dareus' average salary was around $15 mill a year, signed three years earlier when the cap was quite a bit lower. Star's salary compared to that was downright reasonable. There's no proof that we tried to trade for Antonio Brown. All that's known is that we kicked the tires. And while Diggs may be mercurial, in terms of attitude he's no Marcell Dareus. He could still turn out to be a mistake, but he's gotten less productive when he got paid. More, when they jettisoned Dareus they were setting the tone of the locker room. As of now, the tone is set, and it's very good. Part of the reason you build a good culture is because that culture will then affect everyone else you bring in. Process is real. And it's far from only a Bills thing. It's been around for decades in all walks of life and it works. If there's one thing that has appeared to be so about McDermott it's that what you see is what you get. He's straightforward. Not one guy has left saying, "Ah, that process stuff is all nonsense." It isn't. It's his core belief.

I disagree with most of this. 1) First, I guess you could say he was still productive at the time, but he wasn't worth half of what he was being paid. In his first four years he averaged seven sacks a season. Then the new contract was signed and lo and behold, a total of 5.5 sacks in the next two seasons combined. He was still stopping the run, but was wildly overpaid. 2) Spending more money doesn't get you out of cap hell. What firing him did was have him cost us more or less the same amount, but have it moved up a ton. And that's what they wanted, to move up the cap hits and blow them out in one season. It fit their plan really well, actually. 3) It's not the coaches job to work with tough athletes. It's the coach's job to produce success. There are plenty of good ways to do that, and what you're suggesting is only one of them. Where are all the tough athletes that this administration is working with right now? Another - probably much better - way is to kick the laziest asses off the bus and develop a terrific locker room. That's what they did, and kicking out Dareus was a terrific lesson for the locker room .... "they'll even get rid of hIm? With that much dead money? Dang, I'd better get to meetings on time and give everything I've got."

Seems like Dodson is playing up a storm. He stands a good chance of being a very good backup. Matakevich too. Not that we're a powerhouse here at LB, especially with depth, but you can't have starting caliber guys at depth positions all over the team. It's not sustainable. IMO not a major concern, but maybe you're right.

They can afford it. But that's the wrong question. Nearly any team can afford nearly anyone, as long as they don't mind having money problems, and possibly major ones in the short-term, as a result. The question is whether the plan is smart, and if it is, whether the move is within the plan. And if they've shown anything so far, it's that they're smart and they've got a plan and that the plan is smart. So, sure they could go outside the plan, they've got enough cap room to do so. But it would prevent them from carrying out future parts of their plan. It's not goofy at all, not in the slightest. Oh, and by absolutely NO MEANS do we have a lot of cap room. We were doing all right before COVID hit, but what with the massive hit that next year's cap looks like it's going to take, we're - right now - $6 mill OVER the cap next year. We'll probably roll over a bit from this year's cap so we won't likely be over next year but we don't look like we are going to have much. And if we spent that money on a guy like Ngakoue, we wouldn't have much if anything to roll over to put us in the black next year. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/cap/2021/

Or maybe he was bleeding and they sewed him up and he'll be back tomorrow. Let's maybe wait and see a bit.

The word "definitely" simply does not belong in that sentence. Perhaps "could possibly" would fit better. I don't think they keep seven. If they do, Duke could well be the 7th.

I'd love to see a link to that. I can't find anything like it.

He said, "Let's have some fun." It's nothing to take seriously. It's done in fun. Hell, he's taking off points for Chris Brown. I know, right.

Sully's fine. Cranky, yeah. But his main sin for Bills mafia has always been calling a consistently awful team awful, consistently. Mehta, on the other hand - IF it's true that he did start that burner account - is way over the line.

Or hasn't been so far. And yeah, the odds are he never will be, but you never know ... or at least not till the fat lady sings.

This ain't part deuce. It's part 120, and the Bills are 63 - 56 against you. And pulling away.

So, legally it really is called a 4 year deal, hunh? Interesting. Logically, though, calling it that doesn't mean it's a deal that only affects 4 years. It's a case where legal language distorts reality, and works nicely to paint a nice P.R. picture as well. That certainly works to the player's advantage as it is really positive spin, and I can't understand why Spotrac would buy in and use the contract numbers rather than the real numbers for his five year Bills commitment. Agreed it's a nice deal for the Bills and Dion getting money earlier will benefit him too. Seems like Dion really wants to be here.

1) OK, first, are you a lawyer? Are you that familiar with NFL contracts? Sounds like maybe you are? I'm neither, so maybe it really will say that. Point is that if it does, that doesn't actually mean the effects of the contract really start on the day it "takes effect." Obviously, if that language is there, it doesn't affect the fact that some of the contract's terms take effect before the magical "take effect" day. So, they're using legal language to smear reality? Yeah, if that language is there, then fair enough. Assuming it's true, it has nothing to do with the rules of mathematics and how averages are computed. 2) Yeah, I get all that, how the cap works. I understand that it doesn't matter to Dion how the cap amortization works. That's irrelevant to my point, which was precisely that BOTH Dawkins AND the Bills are affected by provisions of that contract as of the 2020 season. The Bills available cap figure changed when the contract was signed. That is how it works with signing bonuses. The provisions of this contract - practically and without question - affect 2020. Calling it a four-year contract be how it's legally referred to. But in reality, it affects both parties over the course of five years. This contract actually extends parties' agreement from one year to five years. That's the reality, regardless of the legal verbiage. 3) You're absolutely right that the difference between that money being guaranteed and unguaranteed will likely have no practical effect, though there are a few bizarre situations like Dion's sudden retirement or sudden vast skill decline to the point where they'd want to cut him over the next couple of months, where it could theoretically come into play. But all of those are very unlikely. Still, it has legal effect. Over not four years, but five. And even if it is legally reasonable to say it is 4 years, $58.3 mill, it is otherwise completely unreasonable. It's certainly not reasonable in cap terms (which is after all most of the point of Spotrac and of course overthecap.com as well). It isn't reasonable in terms of the actual money paid out by the Bills or to Dawkins, as in both cases that money is paid over five years not four. And it certainly isn't reasonable simply in terms of logic. In three ways the contract is affecting the Bills or Dawkins this year. In practical terms its provisions having effects before the "take effect" day you talk about make it clear that jargon and phrasing aside, the provisions and effects take place over five years, not four. And it certainly isn't reasonable mathematically, where nobody would argue that money paid over five years should be divided by four years to find an average per year. Interesting point about what you're saying about an official date when it takes effect, though. It would help explain why people are buying in to the bafflegab and that even Spotrac is trying to say that Dawkins is the 6th highest paid LT in terms of average salary, when it's not true. I still don't understand Spotrac's response.

Yeah, on averages, I'm right, as clearly are you. But I'd even say that on the new contract alone they're a bit dodgy. Certainly not 100% right. You can't divide new money that is paid not over four years but over five by only the four new years. Doesn't make sense. If they were receiving all of the new money during the new years, then yeah, it'd be fair to just divide the two and say you've summed up the new contract, which covers five years, though only four of those years are new. You say the new contract isn't a five-year deal? I think it is. He's already received money from it. The period he'll receive money from that contract is five years. This isn't a four year contract. It's a contract which extends his time under contract with the Bills from one to five years. That's not a four-year contract. It's a contract with four new years. More evidence? Here are three things that changed for Dawkins and the Bills - in 2020 - when the contract was signed 1) In 2020 he received $8.6 mill from that new contract. 2) In 2020, the Bills cap figure went up by $1,720,000 when that contract was signed. It's calculated by dividing his signing bonus by FIVE YEARS, not four, $8.6M divided by five years. (I know you're aware it works this way, Bill, but when you're dividing the signing bonus by five years that's yet another bit of proof that it's not a four-year contract.) 3) In 2020, Dawkins' salary (set in his rookie deal) went from unguaranteed to guaranteed when he signed the new contract. It's NOT a four-year contract. It affects both Dawkins and the Bills over the course of five years. It does extend the contract for four years. But it's not a four-year contract. "That bonus doesn't become a part of his rookie deal," you say? Yeah, correct, but the new deal DOES have effects in 2020. It can't be looked at in any way as money which just is paid or has cap effects in 2021 - 2024, the contract's new years. It will have a cap effect this year and it hit his bank account this year. Trying to sequester it from 2020 simply doesn't make sense ... except as a P.R. ploy. In that way, it makes total sense, as it spins the contract as more impressive than it really is, which blows smoke up the player's ... ego.

You're right that Milano will be a tough decision. But looking at LBs as guys who either tackle or rush misses a huge area of need. These days - and especially in the McDermott defense - LBs also have to cover. And guys who can both tackle and cover provide a lot of value that a JAG would not provide. There aren't that many guys around who can do that. It's not a mistake that Carolina - when they were running a very successful McDermott defense - paid a lot of money to two very good LBs, neither of whom rushed the passer much, but both of whom McDermott apparently considered necessary.

As of right now, we are $5 mill OVER next year's projected cap. That puts us 21st in the league. It's not good. Yeah, we will roll over some money from this year's cap. Right now that would be $17M, roughly, but that will change when cuts and pickups affect things. But we don't have a lot of play money next year. We could walk away from those four DEs next year, but won't. We'd just have to replace all or most. One or two? Absolutely we could do that. But the idea that we would then spend that money on a DE because the money came from cutting DEs simply doesn't make sense. More to the point, you're assuming our FO will suddenly change the way they work, their beliefs, methods and strategies, to fit your own. This is very unlikely. They've made it clear that they don't generally want to bring in high-priced FAs, that they instead want to re-sign their own guys as much as they can. Expect them to continue doing what THEY believe is correct rather than what YOU believe is correct. CAN we pay Ngakoue next year? Sure. But by the same token, CAN I buy a Mercedes-Mayback GLS this year? Absolutely. But it would make no financial sense whatsoever. It would mean my family would have to live on ramen noodles we cooked under the bridge we would as a result be living under. Whether a team CAN afford to sign a guy isn't the question. The question is WILL they sign him ... and that is usually affected less by ability to sign and far more by their process (see what I did there) of deciding financial tactics, procedures and approaches they believe are smartest. Agreed, though, that Beane has structure contracts very strategically. It's one of the things I love about this brain trust.

Yeah, they never used to do it this way, but it almost seems like a new policy. I don't think anyone bought them or anything, but for some reason they seem to have started reporting these things in ways that distort the reality of what the guy is paid. They seem to be reporting things based on "the contract," rather than on what money the guy is now contracted to receive, regardless if he's receiving money from two contracts. Again, it's a weird way to report it, a distortion. But even though they have all of the data for Dawkins now, on his page, all of the main metrics are listed for the contract, the extension. So he's listed as "Contract Terms: 4 yrs $58,.3M, Average Salary $14.575,000" ... and yet also "Free Agent: 2025 / UFA," meaning what we already knew, that he is now under contract for five years, not four. Why the switch? More, Dawkins is still listed as 6th for OLTs in average salary. And his "Average Salary" is listed as $14.575,000. But again, that's NOT his average salary. It's the average of extra money given in the extension divided by new years given in the extension. But those shouldn't be considered together, since $8.6M of the new money, the signing bonus, is NOT paid during the new years given in the extension. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/average/left-tackle/ Why do it this way? It distorts what he's really getting paid.

Again, this is one of those PR things where they say it's an extension worth $59 mill, with four new years. Which is a nice ego massage for the player, but actually means he's now under contract for five years for a total of $60.396,364. When you average all that out, it doesn't come to $15 mill a year. Closer to $12.08.

Yes, nobody is arguing that he was terrific in Minny, but he was let go partly because hewas perceived to starting to cause trouble and becoming a prima-donna. https://www.grandforksherald.com/news/2087027-so-why-did-vikings-trade-randy-moss ""Money had nothing to do with it," McCombs said. "The reason I traded him was because Randy had kind of lost his place in the locker room. He kind of lost his place with our other leaders on the team. As an owner of a sports team, when you sense that you got a player who loses his place in the locker room, regardless of what kind of talent he's got, you have to make a move. I made a move." Problems were starting, and they continued in Oakland. Again, the fact that nobody believed in him the way they used to was shown by how very little N.E. had to pay for him. A 4th rounder. Your last sentence is pure guesswork. Might have been true or not. But what was true after his Oakland stay he was at best a question mark. Oakland would surely have traded him to any other team if anyone had beaten that offer. Nobody did. However you spin this, Randy Moss was widely perceived as damaged goods when the Pats picked him up. Only in N.E. did he put himself on the line. Then after his last season with Belichick, putting up 1264 yards, he all but quit for everyone else. He absolutely stands as a known risk for Belichick that worked out like gangbusters, and the locker room absolutely appears to be a large part of that. So, "pointing out the obvious," isn't a problem in football locker rooms? Please, dude, it's a massive problem when it means criticizing the team and the front office.. Particularly for a guy whose last three years had seen a major dip in production. In Cincy, his YPA looked like this: 4.8, 4.3, 4.6, 4.6, and then suddenly 3.9, 4.2, 3.9. Being a locker room lawyer/rebel is a huge problem, it means many teams won't even consider you. It means any team that picks you up is taking a risk. Which New England did, almost certainly because they felt their locker room could stand up to any pressure put on it. https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2017/07/11/corey-dillon-wishes-mend-fences-bengals/465732001/ “I am a grown man, I can admit when I’m wrong,” Dillon said. “I did some stuff that was not cool, OK? Not cool at all. But, hey, at the end of the day I got the end result that I wanted. That was to play on a stage and actually winning a Super Bowl. Do I wish it would have been with them? Absolutely. Absolutely. It didn’t work out that way. I don’t have no ill will toward nobody there.” He forced his way out there, and found a culture in New England. that got him to fit in. And whoda thunk it, his YPA leapt up the next year to 4.7. No, that's not true, either. Ochocinco had been ungovernable at the end in Cincy, and he toed the line in Foxboro. He was too old to make a difference by that time, or maybe there was some kind of stylistic misfit, but he was happy in the locker room there in a way he hadn't been for ages. Guys like Talib were brought in and cleaned up their act in N.E. He'd had tons of off-field issues in Tampa and again the Pats got a guy cheap because of that, and again that guy cleaned up his act. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1152361-nfl-rumors-bucs-must-trade-aqib-talib-and-draft-morris-claiborne-as-replacement I already agreed with you that there were plenty that didn't work out, for various reasons. But equally, there were a number who they were able to get at a cut rate because of problems and then their culture got them to fit in and sometimes greatly benefit the Pats. The Pats have had a very strong culture and it's helped them bring in guys who've had trouble elsewhere and fit them in. It seems we may have built the same kind of a sturdy, robust culture that may be able to help us in the same way. I have no idea if Earl Thomas will be another guy the Pats will bring in. Possible, though.

Wow, $25 mill in dead cap for the Ravens. Yikes. For a safety.

Moss had dogged it for most of his two years in Oakland. He was a massive problem there, and worked so little that people thought there was a chance he'd lost his talent. Which is why the Pats had to give so little, a 4th, for Moss to the Raiders. And the NE culture and Moss' return of interest, caused a near-total about-face. Dillon mocked Marvin Lewis and team management. No, he was no problem in N.E., but that's the point. The Pats have had a lot of success in getting troublemakers to stop making trouble. You're right that they haven't been perfect at it, and you're right that Haynesworth and AB are two among several who show that. But they absolutely have had some success at it. LeGarrette Blount had done poorly in Pittsburgh and had had that big issue in college. The Pats brought him in and had great success. It is an interesting question whether N.E. might take a shot at him. They don't seem to mind bringing in guys with a history of problems with front offices. But the fact that the leadership council on the Ravens didn't want him back would make me for one slow down and try to figure out what had happened. That's not a good sign. I wonder what Thomas'll do next.