Thurman#1

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.

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.