Thurman#1

Jeez, Hapless, you've got me curious. Great stuff. I'll think seriously about reading it.

"Expressed methods or not - this team lacks superstars in every way." First, it's just not true. Tre'Davious is an All-Pro. Not a Pro Bowler, an All-Pro. He's a superstar. And guys like Josh Allen, Singletary, Tremaine Edmunds and Ed Oliver could easily be superstars in the near future. But second and more important, saying that is like saying, "Sidelines or not, that ball he caught behind the bench should've been complete." The expressed methods are the main point. They're how it's going to happen. The expressed methods are how things get done while Beane and McDermott are the decision-makers. The fact that you might do it differently is entirely beside the point unless you become GM sometime soon. OK, now you've explained more clearly your meaning on "responsible." Which is more responsible, two superstars or four mid-level guys? Go find a recent Super Bowl winning team which signed two superstars in FA in one year. That's your answer. Teams that win Super Bowls don't operate in the way you would like to. It's not responsible. Now how many SB-winning teams have signed four mid-level FAs in a year? All of them, multiple times. It's responsible to do so. And look, you can pretend there are "massive differences" between the two situations if you feel like it, that's your business. But it's simply not true. Differences, yeah, but the differences are minor and the figures will change significantly by the time March rolls around. And you keep leaving out the difference that cuts the other way. Last year they had no core guys they wanted to re-sign to 2nd contracts while this year they could re-sign Tre'D, Dion Dawkins and several others, and Beane has indicated that signing their own guys is a higher priority. They could easily end up spending $20 mill, $30 mill or even more on making sure those guys don't get away.

Yes, they have the ability to sign a couple big FAs and still re-sign their own. They had the same ability last year, and did they? The point isn't whether they can afford it. The point is that their methodology isn't compatible with what you want here. Signing a couple of big FAs and you're in the running for winning the offseason. That's pretty much what winning the offseason means. Yeah, they need an influx of talent. And yeah, that influx can be provided with the draft, mid- and low-level FAs and a high-priced FA every five or six years. If that wasn't enough, New England, Pittsburgh, Green Bay and Baltimore, all teams that run similar conservative processes that include very few genuinely high-priced FAs, would never have won all their titles. What you want and what I want means nothing. What matters is the methods that the FO wants to use. And every single year they say the same thing, this year included, about not going into the deep end of FA and building through the draft and yadda yadda yadda. And every single year people do their best to forget what Beane says and expect him to grab a lot of high-priced guys. And it doesn't happen. Feel free to repeat this every-year mistake if you must, but they've made themselves clear.

Cool! Thanks.

Money is the issue. Not in terms of the total amount of money we have to spend. We could get any three or so guys we wanted if that were the big concern. The money concern isn't total pool available, it is how this regime has said (again and again, and every year) that they will spend free agent money. And been as good as their word every step of the way. What'd he say about being surprised if they go into the deep end? Something like that. Take him at his word. A lot of people here want to play Madden and spend every penny and get the biggest guys. They want to win the offseason. But teams that win the offseason rarely seem to do as well during the actual season. Expect the Bills to continue to be Beane-esque and McDermotty.

These are reasons the players would want it? You're right as far as you go, but if rollovers weren't allowed, why wouldn't an owner not interested in being competitive leave $100 mill unspent cap money this year and then since it doesn't roll over just apply it to his balance sheet and not bother bringing in players with it. This is directly against the interests of the players. Right now owners can do that but must publicly choose to do so, which would drive the fans insane. They wouldn't have to do that if rollovers aren't allowed and the decision publicly announced. There's no such thing as rolled over cap space expiring. Each year you can roll over all your space. That ability was not limited under the present agreement. EDIT: I see. MajBobby understood you where I couldn't, and his response is right on point as well. You seem to be talking about the four year moving average thing where a team must spend 90% of their cap. That has nothing to do with rollover, and it also isn't bad for the players. Each year counts for four years, so they're all equal. The players shouldn't mind that either.

Yeah, this. It's not in the interest of either side to not allow the rollovers. The only ones who would benefit are the relatively few owners not interested in being competitive if it means spending money, even if it's cap money.

I'd argue that signing both just would not fit their expressed methods. They've said again and again that they build with the draft and fill in with FAs and that they don't do a lot of expensive FAs. Assuming they are going to pick one or the other (unlikely but possible, IMO), yeah, I absolutely think one is more responsible than the other. The one who has played in 62 of 64 games the last four years over the one who has played in 35 of 48 games the last three years and will be 32, an age where injuries tend to increase. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/cap/ Yeah, the Bills right now have 53 players under contract, and $89 mill available. Yeah, but that includes guys like Christian Wade, Kaare Vedvik, Cam Lewis, Tyrel Dodson and Victor Salako and you can say they have 53 guys, but those guys are absolute minimum salaries against the cap right now. It's not very different at all from last year. But last year we had basically nobody they could re-sign. This year quite a few guys could possibly be re-inked, including Tre'D or Dion Dawkins, though they also might wait to do 'em.

Well, if you seriously consider a "top 5" guy as a headliner ... not much I can say to that beyond that you're using "headlining" in a way that not many other people would ever use it. Yeah, another $10 mill or so a year contract is a very reasonable possibility this year and every year if it fills a need. Not so much $18 or $20 mill, though.

We're not underestimating the cap they've got this year. It's nearly exactly what they had last year. And last year they didn't have the opportunity they have this year to use a bunch of that money to re-sign their own guys, and yet they still didn't bring in the high contracts. And they left $25 mill unspent so they'd be in good shape this year, something they might well want to make a continuing practice. I mean, if you consider one $11 mill a year contract and several around $7 or $8 like last year a lot of spending then we agree, they're very likely to spend at that kind of a general level. Oh, and responsibly very often does mean inexpensively. Expect conservative cap spending practices, it's what these guys are about. Check their record at Carolina and their public statements.

Agreed, those two aren't the same thing. But neither of those describes Star. What Star is is a very good run stopping defensive tackle. He's a guy who does what McDermott needs done. The fact that he doesn't do things the way a few keyboard warriors would like is beside the point. McDermott was very aware what he was getting, he coached him in Carolina and paid what he felt that role was worth to him and Star is doing much the same thing here.

Yes, it's in a different place last year. That will undoubtedly call for different strategies. But it will absolutely not call for changing core principles. And building your core through the draft and filling in with low- to mid-level guys is a core principle with them. As it is just about without exception for the teams that are consistently good, the Ravens, the Pats, the Pack, the Steelers. It's industry best practices. And it's what they've publicly said are their principles. Now, those teams do indeed bring in a high-level FA every once in a great while, like every five or six years. But two in one year? Nah. I mean, if by "better FAs" you're only referring to talent then hopefully you'll be right. But if you're talking about money, it's virtual certainty they won't bring in two top-level guys. One? I doubt it, but again, even those class organizations do it once in a blue moon. Maybe this will be the year for us. They say they're going to find starters? Absolutely. They did it last year with Morse, Brown, Beasley, Spain, etc. I absolutely expect a few of those types again.

You wouldn't call an $11 mill a year player mid-level? I would. Star was even less. And pretending Morse and Star are "big name signings" is ridiculous. Morse was the 16th highest FA signing in terms of average salary, if you only look at last year's FAs. That is certainly not top-level. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see them sign another $10 or $11 million FA this year. I'd be very surprised to see them sign a high-level guy, though.

They didn't overpay for him. They may not be getting what you want, but they got what McDermott wanted and that's why they valued him that way. Since he's been here, they've had two absolutely top-flight defenses. McDermott knows how to put together an excellent defense, and he values Star. That you don't is very much beside the point. Nonsense. You measure a guy by how well he plays his position. Star plays his very well, and so does Clowney. Clowney's better but in no way twice as good.

Same way it was last year, with lots of mid- to lower-level guys. With a bunch of re-signing our own guys thrown in. And there's no requirement that every last dime be spent. Last year they left a bunch unspent to be rolled over into this year, and they might very easily do the same thing again.

I don't think it's as clear as you apparently do that they were in on trading him. They might just have been doing their due diligence. As for your main question, no, I don't think so. Yeah, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the difference between knowing and guessing and yet smart people who are actually guessing think they know things all the time. That's what people say when the facts don't back them up.

People want to pretend that getting to the Super Bowl only takes one game, and that's absolute nonsense. It takes 16 to start and then two or three more. It absolutely is a passing league. It's not a mistake that the two teams in the SB are 5th and 7th in offensive passer rating, or that the top seven teams in passer rating (Saints, Ravens, Titans, Seahawks, Chiefs, Vikes and 9ers) made the playoffs. Now look at defensive passer rating ... both SB teams are again in the top seven. The top seven in the most equivalent stat (there isn't a really good equivalent, but this is probably the best) for running, YPC, had two of the top seven teams make the playoffs, the Ravens and Titans. The Ravens, Cards, Titans, Browns, Cowboys, Panthers and Giants are the top seven. That's not murderers row. Defensive YPC? The Niners are 22nd, allowing 4.5 per carry and the Chiefs 28th, allowing 4.9 YPC. And for those who say you have to look at total running yards, you're confusing cause and effect. Teams that are ahead run more. So of course teams that are good will run more as they try to burn clock while ahead. The question is which teams run best. And YPA is the best measure we have of that. Not that having a good run game doesn't help. It absolutely does. But it's less important than a good pass game.

Yeah. I've wondered this before. Will we find out someday that he had CTE? No way to know, but it looks possible to me. Whatever the problem, I hope he gets over it, but the odds don't look good.

No. Wrong in two ways. First, while Watkins had 114 yards, he had eight targets, but only had four catches. And Gilmore was on him for only one of the four. https://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2019012001/2018/POST20/patriots@chiefs?icampaign=GC_schedule_rr I can't tell you when Gilmore was covering Watkins. But I can tell you when he wasn't, and that was on three of Watkins' four catches. 2Q 6:03 15 yards. Gilmore is on the other side of the field covering Robinson 3Q 13:48 55 yards. Gilmore is covering Watkins. And it would have been sensational if he'd managed to cover him. On the play, Mahomes literally has six and a half seconds with no rush before he throws. Hard for anyone to cover someone for that long. Still, on this completion Gilmore was on Watkins, the only one of Sammy's catches where Gilmore was on him. 3Q 1:25 10 yards. 3rd and 2. Two Pats are lined up next to each other on the left with Watkins outside. Gilmore lines up opposite Watkins but deeper than the other defender. Watkins cuts underneath for a quick slant. Gilmore and the other defender switch and Gilmore covers the other guy. 4Q 2:54 38 yards. No Gilmore, he's on the opposite side of the field.

I'd argue coaching and specialized personnel is not how they're doing it, so much as it is part of what they're doing. Both having good QBs I would argue is a more important piece. But good teams have a lot of things coming together. Oh, and Daboll is predictable at times and unpredictable at others. The end result is you don't know what he's doing, but you can hope you do and if he's being predictable right then you'll stand a better chance of being right. And you're dead wrong that Daboll's not a championship coordinator. Nick Saban can tell you that he is. I suppose you could say that Daboll isn't yet an NFL champion coordinator. That's correct ... so far. And I'd argue that without a defense like the Ravens 2000 defense or the Bears Buddy Ryan defense, OCs coaching QBs with the talent and experience of the QBs Daboll has coached are virtually all not championship OCs under the circumstances.

Plenty of good, unscared QBs have bad games against very good defenses. I never saw him scared. Confused, yeah. Overwhelmed at times, yeah, that's fair I think. But did he regress? I mean of course he had areas and times when he did, but overall? Just the opposite, he improved. Still has a lot farther to go, but he's trending in the right direction. As father of a bilingual four year-old daughter, I approve of this message. And she did start slowly, but now speaks both languages naturally and appropriately.

You don't need that. It's ideal, but plenty of teams get by with less and have a lot of success. If you're using the words "consistent high end quality" option in a way so as to exclude Beasley, and you are not even sure that Beasley ("probably"), or Singletary ("possibly") counts as "supplementary," or even mention Knox as possibly supplementary, there are plenty of teams that don't have two such high end guys and 2-3 more supplementary ones on top of that. Look at SF. Kittle's excellent by any standard, but after that? But Deebo's production is pretty similar to Beasley's. Who are their supplemental guys if Beasley might not even qualify and Knox doesn't? KC certainly fills your standards, but how about the Titans? Corey Davis is their second option and he's less productive than Beasley. How about the Packers. By most standards, Adams would be considered high-end, but who do they have after that? Yeah, we should work on getting more targets in, no question. I disagree with the specifics of your statement here, but do they need a real upgrade at WR and very possibly at TE? Yeah, I'm with you.

Mainly? That would be a no. It certainly did have an impact, though, a big impact. I don't know if there's one factor that's mainly responsible. It's a bunch of things, but Allen's progress and sticking points will be the biggest factor in our success or lack of it for the foreseeable future, as it was this year, IMO. But he was far from the only factor.

Star is a two-down guy. But he's a two-down guy who gets the job done that they want done. He is still doing what they want from him, same as he did in Carolina, eating space, taking up blockers. He doesn't run up stats, but they've made it clear, players and coaches, that what he does is valuable and they like how he does it. And it simply isn't true that he doesn't get doubled much. He does, particularly when teams are going to try to run through the middle. And he does a good job taking up those doubles.

Me too. I've never understood why Bills fans don't like the guy himself. On the other hand, it's also hard to understand those who argue that he's ever delivered on his potential or even come close. I always wonder if he still hasn't fully recovered from his foot problems. I'll root for him, but I don't want him back unless his salary reflects his productivity rather than his potential.