Thurman#1

How 'bout instead when they don't come for our Bills we forget completely that anyone said anything. It's true there's too much political correctness. But these things don't happen unless there are a lot of people behind the idea. There simply aren't here.

Filly busters. Actually, I like the one suggested by ... agh, I forget his screen name now ... ah, yeah, Warcodered, the Swamp Gators.

That's not the way it works. If a guy is 15th best, out of 64, he's going to get paid probably somewhere in the general range of 3rd to 8th. That's the way it works with the rising cap. It might be a bit different if the cap dips due to the coronavirus. But that's what guys get when they sign a new contract, they're above a bunch of guys who are as good or better but signed a few years back. It's how it works, and Dawkins should be signed if at all possible. The $15 mill or so a year someone suggested is in the right ballpark. You do NOT want to create a vacancy at LT unless forced to in some way. If Dawkins refused to sign for less than $20, then yeah, you get one somewhere else. But they're likely to find agreement in that general range suggested above, and he isn't league average, he's significantly above it. The article has him in the top 11 to 14 of all tackles, left and right, and that's also in the right ballpark though most of the guys above him on that list are LTs.

It's just the working of the market. It doesn't feel like it, but it's still early and if a team with a realistic shot at doing postseason damage sees an injury to a pass rusher, he may get what he's now asking for. Or he may have to drop a few mill and take a one-year deal. Either way he'll be just fine Yeah, the medical thing is a big deal.

I'm sure they're keeping this option open, as a stick in the negotiations. But if you pick a UDFA you might well run him for 800 yards, if you give him enough carries. But you're not gonna get 5.6 YPC out of him the way you did with Mostert. Tevin Coleman managed 4.1 YPC last year behind the same OL.

I don't blame him, myself. You're right that he's doing better than he could be. But the guy is 28 years old. By the time this contract runs out, his next contract will start at age 30, and he is unlikely to get much in a contract at that age. If he was younger you could say, "hey, just wait, the money will come," but in his case if he doesn't make it now, he may well never make big money.

The "team players" who want to leave their team when not offered enough money ... that's every NFL player. I suppose there are a few exceptions, particularly guys going on to third contracts who've already made a ton and a half. Everyone else, though, they all want money, which is only reasonable.

You do. Having cap space, when you've got a GM who knows what he's doing, can turn into wins. Having no cap space can turn into the GM having to give away guys he'd rather keep, which can then mean losses. It's certainly not an exact correlation but having cap space is absolutely a positive for a GM, giving him freedom. Ah, that's why the figures were off. The Eagles are closer to $60 mill over next year now.

$30 mill in roster bonuses and option bonuses. If they turn those into signing bonuses they could cut a lot depending how long the various contracts are or will be. But that'd just be kicking the can down the road. Still might be part of the plan, though.

Second time I saw this from you. Loved it both times. I really think that's a winner. People don't realize that D.C. is literally built on a swamp. Nice one.

The idea that anyone is "undoing" anything is ridiculous. It's called change, change and evolution, and it's eternal. There was a time when blackface was hugely popular and accepted. Is the fact that it's now not an example of cancel culture or undoing? The movie Birth of a Nation was a huge economic and artistic success about a hundred years ago with the KKK as the heroes. Should we bring that back to avoid "undoing" culture. This is just change and growth. Best if people just deal with it, as it appears that people have finally reached a point where they're not willing to accept this anymore.

I'm glad you agree. And the reason why we should stop with statues of people willing to lay down their lives for slavery is because that's what is socially unacceptable to most of America at this point. If the majority of America comes to see Mount Rushmore at some point as horrible in some way, that'll likely go too. You see that happening anytime in the near future?

Yeah, guess that's because of people holding the position that it's OK to keep the Redskins name. Or perhaps not. Where we are is ... at an inflection point. And again, it's about time. Muppy, "I'll root against them either way." Love it. Me too as long as Snyder owns them.

As has been pointed out many times, what are called scalps today were called by several names at the time, including "redskins." https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a29445/true-redskins-meaning/ and https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a29318/redskin-name-update/ "The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads. The grisly particulars of that genocide are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine. "Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, "His Majesty's subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians." They paid well – 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12. "These bloody scalps were known as 'redskins' " A Smithsonian article disputed this, but a later Smithsonian quote disputed the dispute. It's not 100% clear either way, but it's certainly possible this is true. And even if it is not, it's still a racial slur. The reason this change is going to happen is simple. It should. It's time, in fact, it's long past time. It's likely that the original choice of the name was made with good intent. But it's become very clear that it has a significant negative connotation. It's time for the change.

Yup, we're lucky to have him. I wouldn't put McD at #2 yet, but with Cowherd's criteria, where he's looking for a young guy and not a power/control freak so that he threw out Belichick and Payton and a few others, yeah, maybe close.

Yup. Brown is a #1 receiver. Not what people these days call a "true number one," which seems to mean roughly a top ten guy who's tall, but Brown's a #1, and not all that many teams have two of them.

Yeah, all the greatest coaches were terrific pro players.

Moving a statue into a museum and out of public spaces isn't asking people to get over their history. It's asking the government and the country to revere people who deserve some reverence rather than people who chose to fight for a truly abhorrent system. I agree with anyone out there who thinks that political correctness has gone too far. But particularly in the case of the statues in state capitols and statues which were raised far after the Civil War and in many cases with specific racist agendas, I think people are right to call for them to be removed.

Whether names are inspired by native Americans doesn't have much to do with it. The current name refers directly to color of skin and is seen by native Americans as a disparaging reference. Chiefs and Braves not quite so much. As for the news ... nothing has moved that front office in any way ... but now income is affected, in many ways. Expect change.

DiMarco got one hand on it and it was raked out. That throw was there when Josh threw but there was no way to get it there before the safety arrived while still making it over the coverage. Still bothers me that he had two guys open, Brown for a first and Singletary probably for a first and certainly for 10 yards or so on a 2nd and 12 play. The Bills as a team weren't good enough but the same can be said of Allen.

2015 Tyrod was sensational for his first seven games and then for the last seven was almost precisely what he would turn out to be ... he was already 2016 and 2017 Tyrod for that last half of the year in 2015. In game 8, Belichick showed how to defend him and he was never as effective again. His passer rating those last seven games of 2015 were within a point and a half of his career. He went from one game out of the first seven under a 91 passer rating (which is really really good) to four games out of seven below 83 (which is just not good). His last two years with the Bills his passer rating was 89. And that's what he was in the last half of 2015 too.

Completion means from the LOS to the tackle. Air yards means from the LOS to the catch site. If a QB ran backwards 40 yards in a scramble and threw a completion caught one yard beyond the LOS, nobody would call that 41 air yards or a 41 yard gain or a 41 yard completion. Even though if you look at it literally it absolutely travelled 41 yards in the air. Nobody calculates things that way in football terms. Every way of calculating passes starts at the LOS. That Brown play in your second example was 34 air yards and a 40 yard completion. In your first example the picture isn't great but it appears to be made at the 22 or 23, and the LOS is the 47, which makes it a 53 yard touchdown that was about 31 or 32 air yards. EDIT: Next Gen Stats has one called LCAD which does refer to distance from hand to hand, but I don't think anyone else uses that measure.

I'm no Cowherd fan, but changing your position when the facts and the situations change isn't just smart, it's what intelligent people should do.

So he's saying, starting tomorrow, and he's very much including the QB's current situation. That would certainly make it reasonable for him to be ahead of Darnold and Fitz. That's still high for me, but not wildly unreasonable. He's clearly wrong when he says they had no deep threat last year. Brown was wide open over the top and overthrown a good 5 - 7 times last year. He is a terrific deep threat though that part of his game was wasted last year. He puts Allen ahead of Cam basically because the defense is better in Buffalo. And he doesn't like Cam's injury history. With those criteria, again, not wildly unreasonable.

I got from the statement that it's now official ... at this time. Things could change. If you had to bet, though, you wouldn't probably bet against this continuing moving forward.