Thurman#1

Moulty!!!!! Don't turn away!! Oh, holy crow, my 10,000th post.

Agreed that there's no shame, and it's not about fairness. But you say you think it "highly unlikely" that he wasn't planning it? I don't. Not for a second. Very possible, IMO. If Beane had known, he'd likely have given him a chance to retire publicly with the Bills. A guy who's comfortable one place gets cut ... he very likely rethinks his future. Particularly in the days of COVID, I believe what you've got there is a guess with very little evidence. Not that you're wrong. You could be right, but there's no particular reason to think so. My guess is that he had no intention of retiring, and that if he had, he wouldn't have signed with the 9ers, that the experience was a powerful one that caused him to reconsider his future. Again, without talking to him, nobody can reasonably say. And again, some people don't make this move quickly or quietly. Others do, particularly if situations change. With the Bills he was signed for two more years and was going to get another roughly $7 mill if he'd made it through those two years. How much was he going to make with the 9ers? I know it was a one-year deal but I can't find figures anywhere. Could easily be that he signed for significantly less, didn't like the situation, thought he might even be cut later in camp, and especially with COVID as a factor, made the decision to pull the parachute. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, eventually.

Yup, agreed, and nicely put. Some RBs talk about getting stronger as they get more carries. Gore may well have felt like that. And you want a guy to have confidence in himself. But he did seem to lose a crucial half a step about halfway through. Let me be the first to point out that, political or not, having feelings for Alyssa Milano is not having a "man crush." In fact, I believe she's caused more than a few "Milano extensions."

No, this thread is by no means showing why it's a bad idea to take a project QB. By no means. By that logic it would be OK to have taken Rosen (full disclosure: I liked all four of the top four, and Rosen more than Allen, but I did think Allen deserved to be taken early and might be a good pick.) because after all, Rosen was not a project QB. It's a bad idea to take a project QB ... who doesn't work out. Or for that matter, a pro-ready QB who doesn't work out. Anyone, really, who doesn't work out, that's who you don't want. Anyone who works out, anyone, is a really really good pick. Among successful QBs is it better to get one who develops faster? Sure. But that's much less important than simply getting a good one..

I would disagree. Throw in the word "some," and it gets defensible. History isn't kind to some QBs who ... OK, fair enough. You could even raise that up to "most." But history's been pretty kind to Eli Manning and Drew Brees, for two. And there are more. Some guys take a bit longer than average to develop. Others are just bad because they're not good.

I don't think it is. Or rather, only by the folks who feel important when they put that label on people. It's not make or break. But it is an important season. And if we don't see significant improvement it will make it less likely that he turns into a franchise guy. Less likely, but certainly not impossible, so it's not make or break.

Backup QB is the biggest hole? Man, that's pretty questionable. If you're considering backups as possible holes, we've got several holes by that definition, at LB for example, at WR if one of the top three goes down ... if backups can be holes, we've got a few and so does every team. I mean, in one way it makes sense, that being that just about all 32 teams have a major dropoff if the #1 guy gets hurt. We do too. But even if we could get one of the better backup QBs in the league, Tyrod, say, or Fitz, we aren't likely good enough to win a title if forced to play the backup. If the injury happens early in the season just about nobody will win with a backup. If it happens late, ala the Phil Simms and Carson Wentz injuries then you have a chance, but the rest of the team had better be terrific. And more, you had better have a first-string QB who's really really solid, as Simms and Wentz were. That way before the starter is injured the team can build up a big backlog of early wins they can count on to keep them in contention when the backup plays. I don't think Josh is there yet, don't think the difficult schedule is likely to allow us to be in a good enough position in case of an injury, and don't think the team is quite there yet either, though that's harder to read.

I'd agree with him on that one. Sometimes it goes the way you're saying. Other times you're coasting along expecting to take one fork of the road and you suddenly pass a giant red flashing sign that makes you change your mind. And being cut, along with perhaps not finding everything about the new team to be what you expected, could easily be that big red flashing sign. Without talking to Long, nobody can say. The assumption that this has been coming along for some time isn't a fair one to make. It might have worked that way, yeah, but equally, it might not have.

I don't think he's an upgrade to Star. Star was a better 1-tech, which is why he was the starter. Not that difficult to interpret that. But Phillips has been steadily improving and might very possibly have taken over the #1 spot at some point this season or next if he kept improving the way he was before his injury. We've got a lot of DTs but only Star and Phillips are natural #1s. Looks like Jefferson and Butler may spend some time there even if they're maybe not natural fits. If Phillips hasn't recovered well from his injury they'll be in a bit of trouble there, as the roster stands today. McDermott has showed what kind of guy he needs there, ideally a planet theory kind of guy who is absolutely strong as a bull, though he doesn't need to have much quickness. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt, but McDermott doesn't need that.

Yeah, by the rules it was was a safety. But that was a smart decision, going with the spirit of the game rather than the rules. If it had happened the rest of the football universe would have spent the rest of eternity correctly moaning that the Bills won (if they had, which might or might not have happened) on a bull#### technicality. And we wouldn't have won the next game anyway, but would have had a lower draft pick and therefore we probably would have had to pay extra for Diggs so that we might not have made the deal ... It was the right decision for football, a dumb rule. They were smart to go by the spirit rather than the rules. As for the officials opting out, they deserve all the understanding that the players opting out have mostly received. It's a dangerous disease, and they deserve the choice to avoid something that might have horrible repercussions for them or their family members. These guys are mostly significantly older and in poorer shape than the players. They stand a higher chance of health consequences than the players.

Precisely. Last thing you want to do is give him non-football work to interfere with his team-building duties.

The sub-headline of the article focuses on fiendish complexity. And if that's the measure, then yeah, it probably is the most complex. Are they instead talking about pressure? About mental toughness? Something else? If so, maybe not. Nearly any role with so much resting on it, as it does in pro sports, is pressure-packed.

Thing is that the current arrangement requires every day tests not for the whole season but only for the first two weeks of camp. After that it's a bit less often, every other day. And it's very far from certain that people can't transmit it for a few hours before they test positive. https://www.nfl.com/news/players-will-receive-daily-covid-19-tests-for-first-two-weeks-of-camp So yeah, it could indeed go crazy. Especially as the players are NOT in a bubble. Once the season begins there'll be less control. See the story today about the moron CB trying to sneak a girl into the hotel and getting cut? And that's after only like four days. No way to know what will happen, but it's not like we can just assume everything will be OK. And there's every chance that it will be spread on the field, though you're almost certainly right that the first case will come from outside.

Love, love, love this. This is just a short excerpt from the Athletic story. https://theathletic.com/1995561/2020/08/13/i-have-to-earn-it-bills-reward-dion-dawkins-with-hefty-contract-extension/?source=spotrac&pc=spotrac40off2 “'First of all, I have to earn it,' Dawkins said. 'Just because (the new contract) is there, it doesn’t mean that it can’t disappear. And I know that about this league. And I don’t take it for granted. Having this contract, and it’s only been hours, but it’s made me all the more hungry. We hear about guys all of the time that get paid and then they fall off. And believe me — I’m going to say it: That will not be me. I will do anything and everything to fight so it will never be me. I’m going to earn every bit of this contract. And I’m going to do anything and everything I can to help this program, this organization, win on the field and off.' ”

I kind of doubt it, I think it's lower than 5th or 6th. You're right that Spotrac lists him that way now, but I believe they'll adjust that downwards as they go back and look at it. It'll come out about 16th, I believe. Their own pages don't agree right now, but they'll get around to cleaning this up. This seems to be one of those internet problems caused by everyone wanting to get everything on the net as soon as possible. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/average/tackle/ https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/dion-dawkins-21805/ These days when they announce contracts they always release the numbers and spin the whole thing as an extension. That way they can massage the player's ego a bit. This deal isn't four years and $60 mill. It's four more years and $60 mill more. He's now under contract for a total of five years (2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024) and will receive during those five years $61,035,441. Spotrac does confirm that. So yeah, it's a four-year $60 mill extension, but those aren't the numbers you divide to get his average per year. His average per year is just a few thousand north of $12.2 per year. This is a team-friendly deal.

Yeah, if Star and Murphy are your worst contracts, your overall standard is going to turn out to be very high. Both were slight overpays at positions of need. Murphy might have been a good deal without the injury; he appeared to have finally recovered late last year and gotten a ton better. And the Dawkins contract was a great team value. He really cost himself some bucks with his 2018 regression. But this will put food on the family table - the extended family - for generations if handled right.

Great job! A key player kept for the long term. Fine GMsmanship

I don't think the risk of injury would enter into whether kids would play in the spring. I mean, it's not like you can't get injured in the fall. Yeah, they might get injured and then not be recovered for their first NFL season. Or not. And how many college players are right now happy with what their draft status would be without a season? The top 50 or 60? Maybe? For an awful lot of even the top guys, that first contract will be all they'll ever see, and where they get picked can have life-changing financial implications. There are some legit reasons for especially the top players to opt out of a spring season, but the reasons to opt in would be just about as pressing, IMO. So, assuming they all cancel fall ball, would it happen? Dunno. Could it? Yeah, it's absolutely possible. Urban Meyer doesn't want it. But others do. It remains an option. Here's one interesting thing that might make it something more players might be willing to do: https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/07/27/bill-obrien-texans-rookies-facility-jamal-adams-trade An excerpt from Albert Breer's Themmqb.com column: "WHY REMOVING TACKLING FROM PRACTICE COULD BECOME A TREND "You’ve heard a lot of bellyaching over the relative shortage of contact practice NFL players will get ahead of the 2020 season, but there’s one place I know where all of that won’t garner much sympathy. And that place is Hanover, N.H. "It’s been a decade since Dartmouth coach Buddy Teevens eliminated live tackling in practice from his program altogether, and it was only a couple years after that, that he and his staff decided to pull live blocking from practice with it. So he’s not guessing when he tells you that he knows that what NFL coaches will be working with this August and early September (that maximum of 14 padded practices) is manageable. "He’s done it himself. Moreover, he continues to do it, by choice. “ 'The greater adjustment would probably be on the coaches’ end,' Teevens said Wednesday. 'I think the players will find that they're fresher. And my sense, if you're forced to go through something like this, when you come out the other side, you're probably going to do more of what you had just done and realize that maybe you don't have to do it the other way.' “ 'And I say that because I asked some coaches on my staff who will be head coaches, and I've asked them all, they were all initially opposed, "If you took over a program now, would you do anything different?" To a man, it’s "No.” ' How this happened at Dartmouth is pretty straightforward. Teevens, a coach from the old school, had followed Dr. Bennet Omalu’s findings on CTE. The program had gone through issues with injuries, some concussive, in practice. On the field, the Big Green was struggling, and the coach was going into the final year of his contract. So ahead of the 2010 season, Teevens pulled the trigger on the initial set of changes. The results have been undeniable. "• This is Teevens’s second stint as Dartmouth’s coach. The school brought him back in 2005. He went 9-41 from 2005–09. He’s gone 70–30 since, winning at least eight games (Dartmouth plays a 10-game schedule) five times. Over the last six years, as Dartmouth’s gone all-in on this, the Big Green have gone 47–13 with two Ivy League titles. "• Per Teevens, the team’s injury rate has plummeted since, particular in the area of concussions. “We're the most successful team in the Ivy League over the past seven years,” he said, “and our injury rate is the lowest by far.” "• The 2018 season was a particular glowing example of it. Twenty-one of Dartmouth’s 22 starters that year didn’t miss a single game or practice, and the team logged zero in-season surgeries. That’s right: Zero. That team finished 9–1, and was a five-point loss at Princeton away from the program’s first unbeaten season in two decades." Lots more to the article, too. Fascinating.

Not at all. Makes total sense. And while the logistics will be tough, having it in the spring would make a lot of sense, assuming a vaccine is in fact in production by then. The NFL would support that and run a late draft, depending obviously on whether all the conferences follow suit.

IMO, in the NFL if you don't have a franchise QB, the #1 pick is usually far better. I personally don't care about the playoffs per se. I only care about being legitimately competitive for a title. And while people say that anyone in the playoffs might win, it's not really true. There are usually 3 or 4 teams that aren't going to win. Generally it's from the top 6 or so teams that the winners come, and occasionally one who's roughly 7th or 8th will sneak in. But there are also teams that don't have a realistic chance. The 2017 Bills were a good example, for instance. But really, everyone knows who those teams are, and making the playoffs as a creampuff does nothing for me since the 4 Super Bowl losses in a row.

Nice, thanks. Ed really was good.

Hunh? Good route-running is good precisely because it helps get separation. There are other benefits, such as possibly helping with positioning, but separation is the primary benefit of good route-running. I'd argue separation isn't really a trait, it's more a byproduct of certain skills and abilities than a talent on it's own. Yeah, athletic suddenness is another way to get separation, but route-running is mostly about making yourself less predictable to d-backs so you can delay their response an instant and get separation. Hopefully Hodgins can improve his route-running. I certainly don't disagree that route-running is absolutely huge for WRs.

Nope. I certainly did recognize it was a joke, and that I then went on to point out that for a joke, I considered it a poor one, comparing two situations that had virtually nothing in common. Or rather, nothing but that both of them involved Marcel in reporting, which seeing it's his job is not unusual.

I hadn't thought of it that way - drafted three wideouts - but it's an interesting POV. Hope you're right about Hodgins. I'm less sure about that than you are, but it certainly seems possible.

It's interesting that you think so. Particularly as Smoke's answer, unlike some others, has detail, life and clear commitment, not to mention new info. It's not just undetailed boilerplate, despite being about s subject that doesn't call into question anyone's deepest beliefs.