Thurman#1

Yeah, but teams that cut guys pick up the same guys later with great regularity. Look at Robert Foster. Hell, Deonte Thompson's in his third shot with this team. In any case, the Bills didn't want Vallejo bad enough to claim him.

The cap situation was a lot worse than obviously not the best. It sucked. And yeah, they'd been 7-9 the year before. That's not good. 7-9 or close has been pretty much what the Bills are for a very very long time. It was time for a change. And yeah, they didn't have to do a complete rebuild. They could have chosen the stupid option and reloaded. Another two to four years of mediocrity and the new GMs would have been faced with the same choice in maybe 2023. You're right they didn't have to rebuild. They did it because it was smarter, not because they had to. And yeah, jettisoning the salary wasn't necessary either. They could have kicked the can down the road and got further and further into cap trouble, all while not getting together the draft picks to bring in Josh Allen or anyone like him. As for it taking 4 years, yeah, that's a guess. Might be right. Might not. We'll see. And yeah, a team cleaning it's cap situation will bring in a lot of bargain bin types in FA for the first couple of years. On offense they brought in the most important piece, Josh Allen. And Robert Foster. And Zay Jones. And Wyatt Teller. And Croom and Ivory and McKenzie and Dawkins. Who are a bunch of young folks, some of whom stand a pretty decent chance of being good. There are still a lot of holes. It's what happens when you rebuild from a mediocre team with little cap room. Wait, "they have nothing on offense because they chose to build their defense first," you say? Dude, you're blowing my mind. I don't think anyone on these boards knows that. Except, you know ... everybody. They haven't put many resources into the offense, excepting the very large number of picks and guys that produced Josh Allen. They could have built up both sides equally and had both sides be below average, I guess, but would that have somehow been better? Now they've got cap room and can address things.

Yeah, I'm not convinced by any means but it's too early to rule him out too. Is he that much less qualified than Mike Tomlin was when the Steelers hired him? Tomlin had one year as a pro DC and the defense wasn't good that one year.And while I'm not thrilled by Tomlin, he's had a ton of success.

It's $2 mill that's added back into their salary cap. They care. It's not big, but it's something. And they also care negatively because it means their choice will be franchising him or losing him to FA. Irv, no. You absolutely can NOT tag a player who is going to be under contract next year. In fact, why would you? If he's already under contract, why would you force him to stay with your team by putting him under contract for a year. The tags are used ONLY for guys who have finished their last year under contract, guys who will be FAs, specifically guys who are about to become UFAs. The whole idea of a tag is for a team to say to a player, "Oh, no you don't go into FA, we're keeping you for another year." Oh, and Foles wants to start. He might easily accept a contract for less than $20 mill from a team that will commit to make him the starter.

Yup, six teams put in a claim. Not the Bills.

Obviously you don't read my post. The only thing I wrote about Wentz in it was about 2017. Even more obvious ... you don't know what I watched this year, particularly from reading a post which said nothing about Wentz this year.

It would be absurd if there was another reason to look at him. McVay wouldn't have even noticed being stared down from that distance. One thing you can be sure of is that Belichick in that situation isn't wasting time with something irrelevant. He's doing this for a reason and I can't think of another good reason to find McVay on the sidelines. Tells don't have to be tiny little things like the trembling of an eyelid at the poker table. Maybe he makes eye contact with one coach if it's a run call and another if it's a pass, for example. Some things might be very easy to see from far away.

The problem isn't with evaluating receivers so much as it was not putting many resources into receivers. The exception to that is Benjamin, but he made the difference in getting us to the playoffs in 2017 with a couple of good games. Zay Jones may be an example of this in the future, but right now he's doing fine for where he is in his career. And he was brought in while Beane was still in Carolina. The problem with Boldin wasn't a bad evaluation of talent. Benjamin, maybe, though it seems more like a problem at this point in his career. At times in the past, he's been very very good. They haven't put many resources into receiver, particularly since Beane got here. And that's understandable. They had a team that had a ton of holes and in rebuilding and making sure they were going to get a possible franchise QB they created even more holes. They were always going to be unable to address some positions satisfactorily this early, particularly with the major cap problems the Whaley administration left them. Worth noting also that you seem to have forgotten to have mentioned Robert Foster. Is that because he upsets the applecart of your theory that they suck at receiver evaluations? Again, without putting many resources into it, finding Foster seems to have been a really good move. So far, at least. Starting now, they're going to need to address the area and put some real money and picks towards it. Dunno how it will work out, but I'm hopeful. On the other hand, I love taking a flier with Duke Williams but I'm not as positive about his prospects as some here are. Looks to me like he's not very fast or sudden, though I love how he goes up for the jump balls.

This.

2016 with the Pats 58 targets for 38 catches 2017 with the Pats 59 targets for 34 catches 2018 with the Pats 55 targets for 35 catches He's doing what they want. 35 is plenty, or they'd have gotten rid of him before. They don't throw a lot to their outside guys. He isn't making a ton. They might keep him or let him go but it won't be because he suddenly hasn't been doing enough.

I don't think Moulds is the right comparison. He was 6'2, listed at various times as 210 - 225 back when that was really unusually big. Foster's the same height but not such a bruiser, and these days 6' 2" isn't all that unusual. And Moulds ran a 4.5 40. They were different types. Like the rest of the post about Foster, though. Interesting to hear what Tasker said. Thanks. I'm on the other side of that. The draft he posits here isn't based off potential. It's based off what they did last year and positions of need. With his mock draft rules, I think Edmunds doesn't make the first, though I think he's going to be a really good one. In the real world, I like the Edmunds pick a lot for the Bills.

Worse situation for Rosen than Josh put up with. Much worse line. Like it or not, he's got a chance, still, to be a very good one. No way to know, with any of them, but there's a chance.

I hate you. But posts don't get more on target than this. Alright, I don't hate you but I hate to admit how right you are. Painful to think about.

Nicely put.

Having respect doesn't mean you have to like them. They're a terrific team, damn them.

By this definition, a lot of good players will be found to be great players five years after they retire. Gilmore has a pretty decent shot at the hall, though he needs to continue playing at this level for a while longer. What's that you say? Goff is young? Yup.

He's still a really physical corner, as he was in Buffalo. He still gets called a fair bit. Famous players get a bit more leeway. It's got nothing to do with the team he's on, IMO. He was really good in Buffalo. I still wish we hadn't been in such crappy salary cap shape that year. It would have been interesting to see if he'd have stayed. I guess he would have but no way to know at this point.

Fair enough, but if they do that, they shouldn't be surprised if Foles works in his ... threatening to not sign (or promising to sign if Philly wants to keep their options open). It had been a love fest between them till now. But all bets are off if this report is on target.

I suppose anything's possible, but I doubt it. I can't see coming to your fan base and saying we've married this guy for three years. I'd give him good money for a short term deal with team options or a long term deal that's much more affordable. I would be very willing to give him incentives. But more than Roethlisberger? More than Newton? For a guy who's never been a quality starter for an extended period? Nah, couldn't sell myself on that.

Isn't Sammy Watkins on the Rams? Brandin Cooks, too. Both firsts, though not to L.A., obviously. And Cordarrelle Patterson and Philip Dorsett on the Pats. This year's SB would tend to make the argument that you need two guys among your roster who were drafted in the first round, but not by your team. Last year, the champion Eagles had Agholor, who they'd drafted in the first, Jeffery who the Bears drafted in the 2nd and Ertz, who the Eagles drafted at #35. What good trading like five guys for the right to draft Julio Jones is it got them to the Super Bowl very recently. And I don't even like that trade. Arguing that there are some bad teams with #1 WRs therefore you don't need one is not a good argument. You could say the same thing about, say, the Chargers and Phillip Rivers. He hasn't got them to a Super Bowl so I guess you don't need an excellent QB. Except it really really really helps.

I doubt it. Allen's contributions to the conversation were two: "oooooooooooh." And "We could find out."

Fair enough. Their record said they didn't make the playoffs under Cassel. Their record said they won five games fewer than they did the year before with a healthy Brady instead of Cassel. 16-0 with Brady the year before, and 10-5 with Cassel. And as for how their QBs fared, from 2007 Brady to 2008 Cassel, they went from 68.9% completions, 8.3 YPA, 300.4 yards per game, 50 TDs and 8 INTs and a 117.2 passer rating ................. to 63.4% completions, 7.2 YPA, 230.8 yards per game, 21 TDs and 11 INTs and an 89.4 passer rating. Out of this world to decent. And 16-0 with a Super Bowl loss to 11-5 and no playoffs. And by the way, take Belchick's record in Cleveland and throw in that year with Cassel and his teams are 47-49. Throw in Brady's rookie year when Belichick was playing Bledsoe and it goes to 52-60. That's what his record says Belichick is when he doesn't have Brady as his starter.

"A young Brady in Buffalo wouldn't have been as good as Fitzpatrick was," you say? I agree with you in two ways. First, if by young you mean his first year and a few games into his second ... I agree. It took him a while to improve in N.E. He started his rookie year as the fourth-stringer and ended the year as the second-stringer. He made wild improvements, but he simply wasn't ready. Same would have been true anywhere, doubtless. Second, if by "wouldn't have been as good as Fitzpatrick was," you mean he'd have been almost infinitely better, I'd agree with that too. Fitzy under pressure throws INTs with spectacular consistency. Brady right from his first moments on the field didn't do that as much as Fitzy did. Brady was a game manager his first couple of years. He'd have done that in Buffalo too. "Brady can't throw like Brees or Peyton or Favre"? Um, yeah, he can. And he does. He throws with terrific accuracy. And he has has had a good strong arm though not an elite one through most of his career, though he seems to be losing a shade now. Manning and Brees have never had a rifle. They've had NFL arm strength, much like Brady. They were both sensational at pre-snap reads and have both benefitted from great consistency of scheme. Same with Brady. In fact, Brees and Peyton Manning are great comparisons for Brady. Not Favre, but the other two are. "Brady would have been a journeyman with most other coaches"? I won't say directly what I think about that statement, because it would be insulting. I have great respect for your opinions, but that comment is far far below you and crosses over the border into Wackytown. Belichick would have won without Brady? Yeah, I agree, and said so. I said I think if Belichick hangs around after Brady retires, he'll still win consistently. But the dynasty will be over. I agree he'd win. He's a smart coach. He'll win ten eleven games a year and not be a Super Bowl regular.

Didn't want him as our starting QB, but he was always a good guy. I root for him.

He doesn't? Not even near it? Yeah, he does. And while Belichick does a hell of a job scheming for other QBs, the way he beats them ultimately is that his Brady-powered offense outscores them. We saw for five years in Cleveland what Belichick looked like without Brady. And yeah, there certainly was more to it than that, but the major problem he had there was a lack of a franchise QB. Each would have been worse without the other. Brady was more of the reason they won SBs. If Belichick sticks around after Tommy Boy retires, I think you see a team that is almost always well above average but that the dynasty is over.