Thurman#1

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.

Good points. Particularly in the last paragraph. But I live in Japan, and yes, coming into ANY Japanese airport, you walk through a temperature scanner and have for the last ten or fifteen years or so, since SARS, if I remember correctly. Incoming passengers, that is. Mods, I don't see anything useful coming of this discussion, but that's just my opinion.

Be concerned. Be very concerned. We clearly are a well-coached team that isn't psychologically flattened by being on the road. But those eight teams were: The Jets (W) The Giants (W) The Titans (W) with Mariota at QB, who'd gone 2-3 at that time. The Browns (L) The Fins (W) The Cowboys (W) The Steelers (W) with Duck at QB The Pats (L) And the 6-2 doesn't include the road playoff loss. That wasn't murderer's row they faced on the road last year. They had a cumulative record of 59 - 69, and the Steelers and Titans weren't even as good at that point of the season as their not terribly impressive records made them look. I'm betting this year's away schedule will be a lot tougher. But I'm with you that this isn't a huge deal, it's a minor one.

No, he wasn't responsible for Bruce being available. But that's a pretty precise re-framing job. Looked at it in that way, no GM was ever responsible for who was available to him, nor every will be. But yes, he was precisely responsible for picking him. He could've made a mistake. He didn't. Same with Manning vs. Ryan Leaf. Could've made a mistake. Didn't. Polian was a terrific drafter. Bill, anyway. And by the time that Peyton had that injury and was out for the year, Chris Polian had taken over Indy's drafts for the previous three years from his dad. I'd have no argument with you if you want to argue that Chris Polian is not much of a drafter. Anyway, good unpopular take. I know this thread title is constructed to produce takes that are hard to back up, I get that.

He really was. But still, nice unpopular take. That Mercedes pot thing didn't happen in Buffalo. It was in Culver City, California. And Lynch forced his way out of Buffalo. Let's look again at his yards per carry over 2007 to 2014: 2007 4.0 2008 4.1 2009 3.8 2010 3.6 2011 4.2 2012 5.0 2013 4.2 2014 4.7 Is it me, or are there two outliers there? Weird ....! Funny how his first full year in Seattle he all of a sudden became quite excellent again. You'd think, "Boy, those OLs in Buffalo in 2009 and 2010 must have sucked," if Freddy hadn't run for 4.5 and 4.2 YPC behind the same OLs those two years. That trade was forced on them.

This. Oh, and this.

Yeah, there are multiple other reasons to not play in spring. Multiple other reasons TO play in spring also. https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/08/13/nfl-would-accommodate-spring-college-football-season "Imagine this—the Big Ten launches a season Jan. 1, playing on Thursday and Friday nights during the first two rounds of the NFL playoffs, and on Saturdays otherwise. And they do it in some combination of the five indoor football stadiums (Syracuse, Detroit, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, St. Louis) within shouting distance of the league’s footprint. Meanwhile, on the more temperate West Coast, the Pac-12 launches with a similar plan. "In this scenario, an eight-game season, with a bye, could be wrapped up by the end of February, with some semblance of a postseason completed by mid-March. "Maybe the ACC, SEC and Big 12 join in, maybe they don’t. Either way, this shakes up the ’21 calendar for the NFL significantly. And if you want to know how the NFL would react to this, I’ve got news for you—these sorts of concepts aren’t just landing on their radar now. I’m told these are ideas that have been discussed by college coaches already and, notably, NFL teams would be willing to help. The Lions, for one, were approached by a Big Ten school all the way back in the spring about using Ford Field in this way. NFL teams also have discussed what it would take to move the combine and the draft back a month (potentially having the combine in early April and draft in late May) to accommodate the college game. "Are there a lot of moving parts here? Sure. But there’s also reason for people involved to be motivated to get it done. For the Big Ten and Pac-12, this would be a shot—by playing a winter season rather than a spring season—to give their players the chance to play without totally firebombing their 2021 season, and maybe even create an option for other conferences to delay their seasons. For the NFL, it would mitigate what will certainly be a messy, messy situation for its ’21 draft class, in getting most top prospects on the field. "And then, there’s something simpler at play. The NFL needs college football to remain the force that it is for a multitude of reasons. Having all five power conferences play, in whatever form, between now and whenever the draft happens is, without question, the best way to get there. "Now, I don’t know exactly how likely this is to happen. But I do believe the idea—with some colleges playing in the winter, leading into a delayed draft season—is something you’re going to hear more about in coming weeks." ... "So if the Big Ten and Pac-12 can figure out a way to play? It’d totally make sense that the NFL would be trying to help them every step of the way. And based on what I know, I believe the NFL absolutely will." - Albert Breer There's a lot more to Breer's reporting on this in the story, most of it on how the NFL will feel about it, how it will help/hurt players who might be drafted, and so on.

Right, no reason to do so ... except they almost certainly liked Winters better and were able to get him. But except for that, no reason. Winter had been cut before they cut Long. Wait, that's a really good reason, isn't it? And "very possble"? No. Possible? Sure, there's a wild outside chance, if you want to think that a guy seriously thinking of retiring soon is going to: 1) discuss it with his GM or someone who would report it to his GM 2) have the GM who thinks he's considering retiring tell him he's letting him go, and then not ask the GM to let him retire on his own terms 3) then very quickly sign with another team Sorry, man, it doesn't make much sense at all. We can't rule anything out without talking to him but yeah, it's very unlikely that all that went down in that first he had strongly considered retirement, that Beane found out about that and that it all went down in that order. Yeah, pretty far-fetched. But at this point, 'nuff said.