Thurman#1

No particular reason to think this. And plenty of reason to think the opposite. Here's an excerpt from yesterday's Carucci article. "Neither Beane nor anyone from the Bills spoke directly with Brown. Beane has never met him, so there is no way of truly knowing from the Bills’ end how he feels about the team or Buffalo. "However, sources said the Bills were confident if they met his financial demand and were able to make the trade, Brown would have happily joined them. Despite speculation that their inability to acquire Brown doesn’t bode well for their efforts to sign players during the NFL’s unrestricted free-agent period that begins Wednesday, the Bills believe what was true before about signing players in the open market remains true: money talks." https://buffalonews.com/2019/03/08/buffalo-bills-antonio-brown-pittsburgh-steelers-brandon-beane-nfl-football/

It shouldn't. It's in line with what Carucci wrote yesterday in the News.

It's "not a fineable offense"? Yeah, which offenses are fineable? I've yet to be charged a penny for anything here. And yeah, a link to a rumor is not proof of anything. On the other hand, a link to a journalist with a source has some value. But an inability to link to anything .... People's opinions here are worth as much as LaCanfora? Yeah, um, right. When people on here say they have facts and can't back it up and that goes on and on it all becomes a game of chinese whispers. Don't back up your rumor and you won't be believed, and reasonably so. Don't have anything to back it up? Own that. It raises the level of the discussions here vastly when things are backed up with links.

It was on here, as a rumor. Someone credited it to Aditi Kinkhabwala's twitter, but when I checked her feed yesterday, nothing remotely like that was there. It was probably started on here. But CuddyDark has added a third-rounder to what was talked about on these boards. What was reported (sourcelessly) on the thread I was reading yesterday was only a switch of the 1sts. There's never even been a legitimate source saying they came to final terms, so it looks like another baseless rumor.

He's a mod. And he's right, you're in the wrong here. If you want your posts believed, back them up. If you can't, they generally won't be believed. It's not our job to check your (or anyone's) unsubstantiated rumors. "Check it yourself" is a common dodge for people who can't back things up. If I were to check every post where people say that and won't back it up, probably around 20% would turn out to be correct.

I could easily be wrong on this, but Jones seems to take a lot more punishment than Brown. I think he's going to start wearing out. Soon. No thanks.

Thing that stuck out for me was this. "The teams correctly assume that the answers they seek lie hidden inside the players, and yet the combine gives them all just 15-minute interviews amid the circus of other activity. Some teams would rather the entire week be devoted to interviews, along with the invaluable medicals exams. Franchises are forever fumbling in the dark for clues. They all try a forever-changing system of interrogations, mock-therapy sessions and psych evals. A few, like the Colts and the Patriots, have utilized non-football leadership and character experts who are fully integrated into their facility and staff. Most, however, have not. "When I asked around in Indy, I was told the reason is shockingly simple: many coaches believe their own myth about being leaders of men and experts in the realms of character and motivation. They cannot admit in public that they really don't know much about any of those things. Maybe in every NFL facility there is a person or a group of people who could win games, maybe even The Game, if the people above them could stop preening long enough to listen. "Since the interviews are where a team stands to gain the most insight, I wondered what it is possible to learn in 15 minutes -- or at least what would be possible if you got a trained professional and didn't leave this up to coaches and general managers. I decided to get a psychological evaluation. A few calls later, I was hooked up with Dana Sinclair, who has done the tests for the Lions, Seahawks and, for years, the Colts. She worked for Dungy and Jim Caldwell, and then she left, and now the team has hired a Green Beret, still looking for different ways to answer the same question." Yet another way the Pats find to get a small advantage. This isn't Belichick, you can bet, it's their whole brain trust working together and well, and you can bet that Belichick heard it and immediately agreed. There's more in the story about his own evaluation as conducted by a (non-NFL) pro and how very accurate it was. Damn it. Why aren't we doing this, next year, if not this year.

Just isn't particularly true. The most important thing is money. Not just for Buffalo but for everybody. And what is a debacle about it? They kicked the tires, got the values that would be necessary and the money AB would require - neither one of which would have been available without entering negotiations with the Steelers - and then decided it wasn't worth it. According to Carucci they never spoke to AB himself in any way but had spoken to his agent and were very confident that if they'd done the trade and successfully re-negged Brown, necessary to make the trade of course, that he would have reported. The Steelers were the ones who broke it to Rapoport, not the Bills. It may have hit Bills fans hard but it's no debacle. "Despite speculation that their inability to acquire Brown doesn’t bode well for their efforts to sign players during the NFL’s unrestricted free-agent period that begins Wednesday, the Bills believe what was true before about signing players in the open market remains true: money talks. "It has been the Bills’ experience that there are certain players who prefer to play in larger markets and, if contract offers are equal, will choose those teams. The Bills also have found there are some who would rather play in smaller markets. "Still, money is always the largest factor in signing free agents." https://buffalonews.com/2019/03/08/buffalo-bills-antonio-brown-pittsburgh-steelers-brandon-beane-nfl-football/

He didn't report a done deal. I believe the word he used was "likely". On twitter, "closing in on a deal." In a different tweet, "close to being done."

Yeah, what Rapaport reported was correct. Mebbe the Steelers were the ones to call him, probably hoping for one last offer out of left-field?

Kinkhabwala: "From what I was told a little bit ago, the Steelers have said they are accepting bids up until Friday morning, that as Ian has said, they're closing in. I was told earlier today that the Bills seemingly had the best offer but that the Steelers were going to keep their word, that they are accepting bids until tomorrow morning." http://www.nfl.com/videos/buffalo-bills/0ap3000001021493/Kinkhabwala-explains-what-kind-of-player-the-Bills-would-get-with-A-B

There is no salary min this year. They have to spend 89% (in cash) over a four-year period. They don't have to worry about this, especially as it's possible to spend cash in one year that goes well over the cap. The #1 team in cash spending this year, the Bears, spent around $233 mill, though the salary cap was only $177.2. That's $55 million over the cap. Eight teams spent more than $200 million. https://overthecap.com/cash-spending/ and click on 2018. This isn't going to be a problem. So take them at their word and expect them to spend judiciously and maybe front-load a few contracts.

First, this is only a rumor of a guess. And second, even if it happens, Rosen could still very easily be a tremendous success elsewhere. It'll be another two to three years before you get to gloat about this. If you do.

"Spending requirements "There is a minimum amount of money that a team can put towards their caps. All 32 teams are required to spend at least 89 percent of their caps (which this year is $157.7 M). This is called the minimum cash spend requirement, also known as the 89 percent rule. "Teams don’t have to spend their 89 percent every year, however. This requirement must be the average amount spent over the four year spending period. The current spending period started in 2017 and will continue through 2020. "In other words, the Bengals could have to spend 88 percent of their cap last year and this year, but would have to spend at least 90 percent over the next two years." https://www.cincyjungle.com/2018/9/6/17600618/nfl-salary-cap-2018-everything-to-know-about-salaries Also important to know that if a guy gets a 4 year contract this year from Buffalo with a $10 mill signing bonus this year and a $5 mill 2019 salary, his 2019 salary cap hit will be $7.5 mill ((1/4 his bonus) plus his salary). But the Bills cash spend will be $15 mill this year on him. Meaning it isn't tough to spend a bunch of cash in any given year. You can actually spend more than 100% of the salary cap in cash, and plenty of teams do that. For instance, last year the Bears led the league in cash spending, putting out $233 mill. To remind you, the salary cap was $177.2 mill. https://overthecap.com/cash-spending/ Posts in this thread have referred to front-loading contracts, and in terms of cash spending, most contracts are front-loaded. And the posters are right that doing so would ameliorate the problem. More, the figures are not bad at all. 2017 salary cap: $167 mill Bills 2017 active cash spending: $138.576 mill Bills 2017 total cash spending: $149.948 mill 2018 salary cap: $177.2 mill Bills 2018 active cash spending: $129.057 mill Bills 2018 total cash spending: $156,903 mill 2019 salary cap: projected at $187 - $191.1 mill Bills 2019 active cash spending (so far): $88.8 mill Bills total cash spending (so far): $88.8 mill https://overthecap.com/cash-spending/ Total cash spending is the important number. And as you can see, the problem is this year. And we're going to be spending a bunch more yet this year. How much? Hard to know, but say that it's $50 mill in cap, including $30 mill in 2019 salaries and $40 mill in bonuses. And yeah, that doesn't add up, for the reasons explained above. But if that ended up being it, it would cost $50 mill against the cap and $70 mill in cash. Problem pretty much gone. This isn't going to put any real pressure on them at all. Think "judicious."

In 2017 they ended the season around $10 mill under the cap. $11.198 precisely. Same with last year. $9.186 mill. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/cap/2017/ https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/cap/2018/ Why are they under the threshold? Because they're about $75 mill under this year. Spend about $40 to $50 mill this year and they're easily back under. This simply isn't a problem. And in case people don't quite get that quote ... everyone has to spend 89% ... when everything is added up after the end of the fourth year. It's NOT that we have to spend 89% every year. Not going to be a problem, especially as next year, 2020, is when you can start to re-negotiate and lengthen contracts that finish up in 2021, guys like Zay, Poyer, Dawkins, Milano, McKenzie, Duke Williams, Tre ...

It was the teams, not the players, who wanted comp picks so they could save money on FAs and yet get something back. And nearly every rule can be said to help the best teams. It's not that the rules are built to do that. It's that the best teams do a better job of handling the rules in a way that maximizes benefits for their teams.

All about the Buffalo Bills. Allen's certainly a large part of that, but no, it's not all about Allen.

If you turn down multi-million dollar jobs because your wife tells you to ... when you're already a multimillionaire and have a very decent shot at seeing another multimillion dollar offer from someone else in the near future ... you're just fine. An ordinary guy.

I'm sure it must go over huge with the pocket protector and filthy lab coat set, but it's off-point. Again, you can't find a dictionary that doesn't list "accuracy" and "precision" as synonyms, I'm betting. There may be one out there but the first seven or so I checked all had them, every one. More, in I believe two cases, the word "precision" was actually used in the dictionary definition of "accuracy." There are small subsets of situations where the differences become important. Essentially it's when physics geeks get together. Football fans are using them interchangeably. In the dictionaries you find those listed as secondary or tertiary definitions, all labeled "scientific meaning" or "technical meaning." Precisely. It's not what football fans mean when they use these words. The fact that science weenies want to say, "Well, well ... when we use the words we have different meanings in mind entirely," has nothing to do with a football discussion. As I look through, it's obvious that nobody but you two are saying anything positive about this. Everyone else is ignoring this point, and from here on, so will I.

I don't think it's quite as clear as all that. There's a report out that the Steelers offer only had $10 mill fully guaranteed. If so, that would make it much more understandable that he turned it down. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/07/17/report-final-leveon-bell-offer-had-10m-fully-guaranteed/ Can't imagine him getting $50 mill in the first two years. But why not throw out some crazy numbers this early. If he believes it, he'll be disappointed, but maybe he's just starting to frame the discussion to his advantage.

So ... you were writing about something I said before? Everything but the first line of your post is an old post of mine. And you, what, expect me to comment on my old comments? Your stuff is generally Kool-Aid saturated but at least understandable. So, one more time, what are you talking about? Nope, the one obsessed with Tyrod was you. You spent three years believing that if you put together enough dumb research projects and simply refused to stop saying the same things over and over in different words about how terrific Tyrod was ... that they'd somehow magically come true. Now the name of the Bills QB has changed but method and belief is identical. That's your MO about Bills QBs. I'm just reminding people about your little obsessions.

Yeah, um ... OK. What you said there has nothing to do with what I said, but OK. Repeat something obvious and irrelevant if you must. In the meantime, though, that throwing a catchable ball in most cases means hitting a ten foot window. Yeah, the QB might catch the absolute tip of it and the receiver makes a one-handed catch. But NFL WR wingspans are mostly around 75 inches, give or take three or four. And receivers can dive to either side, increasing that. Throwing a ball that's catchable for an NFL wide receiver means you've hit a very large target. The idea that throwing a ball that's catchable means the throw is accurate ... it's ridiculous. Throwing a catchable ball isn't any more congruent with accuracy than is completion percentage. The reason you like it more is two-fold. First, it's easily countable and you're biased towards numbers that are countable with work so you can build a project around it. And second and more important, it is always going to yield a much higher percentage, as it's much easier, and a higher number makes Josh Allen look better, and is thus ipso facto a better thing.

You crack me up, Transie, really. You seem to think people view you as somebody who proves people wrong, in such a terrifying way that they then run away from you. You're like one of those little yap dogs that thinks it's a German Shepherd. A little yap dog with leprosy. Not that you have leprosy, but a little yap dog with leprosy would get the living ***** beaten out of him but the disease's effects would leave him not feeling pain. So he'd leap up after the fight, say, "Hey, that doesn't hurt, I must've won, I guess I really am a German Shepherd. The dog I was fighting with has left, clearly there's no other reason for him to have left, he must be terrified. I can't recall a single time you've proved me wrong on here. I've been wrong more than a few times, and I've learned plenty from other folks on here. Not you, though. I'm sure you've corrected me on some small factual mistakes I've made, we've had enough arguments that that must have happened and I've certainly done the same to you. But having been wrong on a major issue? Nah. Hasn't happened. I do remember a bunch of previous times when you claimed it had happened. A ton of times when you thought you'd proved how wrong I was when I said Tyrod wasn't a franchise guy. Once you thought you had corrected me when you told me there's simply no reasonable argument for thinking Josh Allen could ever succeed in the NFL. Not one when you were correct about that, though. And no, the evidence didn't change your mind about Josh Allen. In the interval between the Bills drafting him and you having a religious conversion, he didn't throw a single ball in anger. There was no new evidence. Just time for you to say ... "oh, wait, he's the Bills new QB, let me go back and look at everything again ... understanding that he's the new possible franchise guy ... wow, my perception is totally different on this guy now that he's a Bill. Clearly I was wrong back when I looked at the same stuff not knowing he would be a Buffalo Bill. How strange I didn't see the obvious aura until he was on the roster. Now it's time for me to do the research projects I did on Tyrod that made Tyrod look so absolutely terrific to me for years." The link you sent proves precisely that. He's drafted on the 26th and on the 30th you're already saying " I'm already growing to really like Allen because I'm a Bills fan and am purely a fan of my team ..." Exactly. And you throw up a few PR videos that you can say you used as a trigger. But none of those would convince a guy who felt that it was the simple factual truth that his college completion percentages ruled out pro success. And that was you. Yeah, you found a few things that would support your view. None of which had much to do with completion percentage. You'd already heard and in your opinion ruled out the possibility that he might be successful. What changed that? A video on his upbringing in Firebaugh? Would that have convinced you if it had been the Cards who'd drafted him? Puh-leeze. The little switch in your brain, the one I might call the Tyrod switch, had been flipped when the Bills drafted him.

Transplant, your views were not "certainly reminiscent of many of these negative posts," as you try to put it. Your views were far far beyond them in negativity. Transplant, you say you're willing to admit when you're wrong. But that's not what happened. Evidence didn't change your view. The fact that it was the Bills that drafted him changed your view. Your habit is to pick one Bills QB and venerate him. This wasn't some change you were making. This was an exact continuation of your old M.O. ... pick your fave Bills QB, and perceive him positively regardless of what the evidence actually shows. You didn't change your mind from evidence. You slotted Josh Allen into your "he's my guy regardless of what happens" slot and started perceiving him differently. He's your new Tyrod. And if I "went radio silence when I was blatantly wrong," I would be on here all the time, without letup. It's you who's been wrong, Transie. Relentlessly. How many posts did you spend trying to argue that Tyrod was a franchise guy, that he was near-elite, that he was going to be here another year? It was well into the thousands, probably five thousand or more if you combine both boards. You're the guy with the relentless history of being wrong. I've been right. When I go radio silent, it's because I'm busy in my life and am improving my sense of the value of posting on here and how it compares in value to the alternatives. The times I'm on here a lot are generally times in my life when I'm procrastinating. If you see me gone for a few days, be happy for me, I'm doing something interesting.

Remember what you thought about Allen around then? There was a thread about him a week or two before the draft and you were all over his poor completion percentage. You were absolutely positive he was going to be a bust, remember? I said something in the thread pointing out that his mechanics had been improved by working with Palmer and that the fact that he'd gotten better and more accurate through the draft prep process was a good sign. I finished up by trying to be a bit conciliatory and said something like, "at the very least there's a legitimate argument that taking him might possibly work out." Remember what you said? I hadn't quoted you or engaged you at all, but you replied and were very very lofty about the fact that I was simply wrong, and that there wasn't even a legitimate argument for the guy. Does that count as a gem?