Thurman#1

John Brown is a #1. He's not a "true #1," which seems to mean a top ten guy, but he's a #1.

It's an old argument, going way back before Parcel, but he said it best. You're as good as your record says you are. We weren't "essentially an 11 win team last year." We were a 10 win team. Against a very easy schedule. We will have to be a ton better than we were last year to win 12 against this much better schedule. It could happen. I don't think it will, myself, but if forced to guess, I'd guess that we win the division, and that's a very very good thing. Yeah, me too. Nicely observed. That's smart and observant.

I don't see anything here about putting money anywhere, much less where your mouth is. Are you betting? Or are you just putting your mouth where your mouth is? 'Cause with our schedule, that's very optimistic. Possible, but very optimistic.

This is a Beane specialty, getting extra picks from guys who were on the bubble anyway. Go, Beane, go.

Agree. Gilmore has absolutely performed better there than here. How much is the system and the surrounding cast? Dunno, but when in Buffalo he was NOT widely considered the single best CB in the league as he is there. Same with Hogan. He was more productive there, and the Pats system isn't built to pump up WR stats. Brady spreads it out. When I checked his stats, I was surprised to see he was still in the league last year, though. I hadn't noticed. He was in Carolina. As an ex-Panther, can it be long before Beane brings him in?

They really will not "need" to use most of that money. They're scheduled to have the third largest amount of cap space in the league next year. They'll need to use some. Every single team, without exception, does. But they're in terrific shape next year. And next year is going to be a year where the teams have all the advantage, because there are going to be the usual amount of FAs looking to get paid and far far less available cap space league-wide to pay them. Signing FAs to bargain deals next year is going to be much much easier than it usually is, and the Pats are in terrific shape to take advantage of that. Will they have to get a QB? Dunno. Nor does anyone, really. Will Newton turn out to be the guy? Will he be injured and Stidham turn out to be excellent? Will they turn out to have nobody. Will they draft one early? We don't know.

And even his draft record isn't bad, considering how low they've picked for 20 years now. Man, am I looking forward to seeing them lose the division. Very decent chance it finally finally happens this year. Next year. And right now next year looks like a terrific year to have options, damn it.

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.