Thurman#1

Cha ching!! This!!

Dude, no problem. There's so much going on here all the time, I swear I miss half of it.

I get that you may well have wanted to be taken with a grain of salt. Just wanted to quickly go through what it'd probably take in draft picks to get from #30 to #12. On the Rich Hill draft pick value chart, #30 is 620 points and #12 is 1200 points. Meaning that to go up that far we'd need another first rounder this year at about the same level. Or if we could give up both our 2nd rounders this year and that would about do it, though teams moving up usually have to pay a bit extra to do so. Anybody think any other teams are valuing Cook at the value of a late first rounder, or two seconds? I greatly doubt it. Throwing in Cook with #30 might get us up to the late teens, maybe. But maybe not. Any team we trade him to knows they are likely to have trouble signing him at what most would consider a reasonable valuation. It is $15M AAV he talked about.

Good point, Bill. $3.8M for four years, he's receiving. Getting that bonus check will take a huge weight off his shoulders.

I'd agree, he's an asset on the field. Just not a $15M asset, and not really close. My guess is that Cook is going to hold on unless they do indeed come close to $15M, and that that will turn the Bills off. Cook will be here next year whether they extend him or not. 2026? Now, that's up in the air. I don't quite get your point when you say that Beane has knocked down these contracts with hometown discounts and that Cook will be paid about what he wants. Why would we treat Cook better than we treated the others? Who's gotten away for big money? Tremaine Edmunds. Harrison Phillips got more than the Bills probably wanted to give him. Stephon Gilmore. Beane went public about how he wanted Robert Woods back but just couldn't afford him at that time. Guys get big paydays from here sometimes. No reason to think Cook won't, particularly if he insists on close to that number. And I couldn't blame him if he did. RBs in particular have to cash in quick. But I wouldn't pay him much more than $10M. $10 or $11M would put him sixth in AAV behind McCaffrey, Jonathan Taylor, Saquon, Alvin Kamara and Josh Jacobs. It's above Derrick Henry.

I'm sure that a bond must be part of it. But you're almost always going to get some discount when you sign guys this early. Players are highly aware of what could happen if they don't sign and get injured in the 4th year. Or have a bad year, or whatever. Getting the big payday and a big hunk of cash early is huge for these guys.

Absolutely fantastic!!!! If he comes down a lot, yeah, he'd be great to bring back. Heh heh. In your dreams.

I do remember how bad our WR core was before Cooper. They were decent even early in the year. Not really better than that but we moved the ball. Cooper was not the main difference between early and later in the season. He did make an impact. But he played 239 snaps for us. That's not a whole ton. And there was not a noticeable difference between when he was on and off the field. If he was the reason they improved, we'd have seen a difference when he was off the field. We didn't. They got better as Josh got used to the guys who he was playing with for the first time, as everyone improved their understanding of the new scheme and as they got experience together.

Basically, I'd agree, but with the caveat that if you can find a guy like Saquon Barkley, a bell-cow back that has every skill you look for in an RB, those big contracts look a lot more reasonable. I don't think Cook fits that description, though, and I think the Bills are going to want to keep giving Cook the same amount of limited snaps in the future that he got last year, again making him less desirable than a guy like Saquon.

This year? Before his rookie contract is finished? That would be serious malcontent territory. Next year, if they franchise him? Much more feasible. Can't see him holding out this offseason.

I don't think you can judge an FA class on what they did NOT do. I mean, if FA was the only way to get players, and if FA was finished, then yeah, you'd blame them for not doing better at CB. But we could still draft a CB, trade for one, find a terrific UDFA, or just pick up an FA CB later in the process. Douglas, for instance. And I can understand why people are upset about the suspensions, but I'm not real worried. They brought those guys in to make them better in the post-season. Not ideal, but not a big deal either, IMO. So, smart then. Nice.

I think you're overcalculating the question marks. Coleman is a minor question mark. He looked really good for a rookie till the injury. Still got a lot to prove. Palmer is like to be solid in the role they are projecting for him, which will not be being a #1. He'll probably be a #2, whether top middle or bottom of that cohort.

This, I'm thinking, is how it'll turn out. They'll likely consider Douglas but it'll depend. Cooper'll likely be too expensive.

"Infinitely" is overstating it, but yes it's worked out better for them. But we should have won that game last year, in a year that was supposed to be a step back. If the refs had got that tush push first down call correct, if Kincaid had held onto that final catch, or if Josh had not been dismal the first two drives, we'd have been in the Super Bowl. When the team that's winning Super Bowls is using a strategy, people should probably not be saying it's not workable. The last two dynasties have both featured TEs, have not spent a ton of resources on WR, and their elite QBs, like ours, have allowed them to have a great deal of offensive success with that strategy of using resources.

Of course TEs count. His point is precisely that having TEs helps add specifically to having good and dangerous targets in the pass game. It helps explain why teams might not need to spend a lot on WRs. Diggs absolutely counts when someone is trying to make a point about a lack of draft resources being used on WRs. Diggs was officially brought here in a trade, but it was a first round pick that was traded. That pick was what brought in Diggs, even if it did not do so int he draft. Kincaid was injured. We've heard that from a lot of sources at this point. Nothing is a sure thing, but he's likely to be a lot better this year. And Knox isn't mediocre. He's pretty damn good. He blocks very well, which is why he gets a lot of snaps, and he scores TDs, and he catches a good percentage of his targets for a guy who gained 14.1 yards per reception last year. Was he paid too much int the contract they gave him when they didn't know they could get Kincaid? Yeah, he was. But he's not mediocre. Before Kincaid, he was getting more than 500 yards a season and a lot of TDs. Agreed that having one of the absolute best QBs hides faults. So does having Shakir. So does having a terrific OL. So does having Cook, and the same for defense. Yeah, you want an elite QB like the one we've got. That's part of the reason you want him, so you don't have to spend a ton of money elsewhere and you can spend your best draft capital elsewhere. Defense is the problem on this team after we lost Poyer and Hyde and with DaQuan taking a step back.

You're missing the point. First, "the issue with those teams," is a poor statement of the problem. There isn't one problem. There are many. Teams are complex and problems are many. Is a large part of the problem with those teams that their QB is not good enough? Yeah. But equally, teams that don't have QBs in the top 8 or 10 or so don't have to pay massive QB salaries. That both forces them to find alternative ways to compete offensively and gives them more money to use in other ways on the offense. Those are the teams that generally end up thinking, "Yeah, let's spend a ton on WR. Maybe we can help out our QB enough to make the offense good enough even without a great QB." Teams that are spending a ton on great QBs have to make that up somewhere. One of the most common ways for great teams to do that is to not spend a lot on WRs. They figure a great QB doesn't need a true #1. Did KC re-sign Tyreek? Through the history of Super Bowl winners there are very few true #1 WRs on those rosters. Very few, particularly on 2nd contracts. Teams that pay those huge WR contracts are often teams that don't have top tier QBs and don't win Super Bowls, particularly after the start of the free agency era. We had a ton of them a few years ago, with John Brown, Beasley, Manny Sands, Diggs, etc. Yet last year was our best offensive year ever.

Sharp does make it unclear. That's interesting. I doubt Sharp's numbers are nonsense, but you make a good point here.

Elevating an offense isn't the goal. This is what many people get wrong. ELEVATING THE TEAM is the goal. In Moss' three years with the Pats, their offense was better. But the team? Last Mossless year - 12-4 lost AFC championship 1st year with Moss - 16-0 lost Super Bowl 2nd year with Moss - 11-5 no playoffs (the Cassel year) 3rd year with Moss - 10-6 lost Wild Card game 1st year after Moss - 14-2 lost Division Game For the Pats during the Brady/Belichick years, that's not a particularly fruitful three year period. Certainly was a terrific first year, we have to give them that. But you have to throw in all three years Moss was with them. No championships. One Super Bowl loss, one year losing the Wild Card Game and another with no playoffs. The Cassel year helps explain that second year. But what about the 3rd, when they lost he Wild Card Game and had a 10-6 record with Brady and Moss? In any case, the Pats got Moss for a 4th round pick. If we have a chance to get a #1 WR for a 4th rounder, I would support it 1000%. The question is more about the draft, I think, than trades or FAs,

There isn't a team in history that had a great QB who didn't do their absolute best to use that guy's talent to subsidize the rest of the roster. Hell, there isn't a team in history that has had any terrific players who didn't do their best to use that guy to subsidize the rest of the team. As a coach or GM, that's your duty when you get a great player. As for your argument on draft capitol, that's only so if you count the #1 pick as higher than the #2 pick, and so on. I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly, but it's the best guess) that Sharp, wanting to compare how much emphasis each team put on WR in the draft rather than how much value each team's picks had, probably valued all first round picks the same, all seconds the same, and so on. In that case, worse teams do not have more capitol, unless they traded for it, got comp picks, etc. Which would make it much clearer, by the way, how much teams spent on WRs compared to other teams in the draft. I don't know Sharp's methodology, but taking pick order out of the equation would make it much less murky how much they valued WR over other positions. If you're a member of his site or just had info on his method, let us know. That'd be really useful info.

Cha-ching!!! This!! Nope, just the opposite. It's largely teams without a real QB, and perhaps a clue as well, who spend the most draft capital on WRs.

You're right up there in the running for goal post shifting. You originally said, "Average winning %’s of teams with exceptional QB play supports our record independently of other variables. Those teams post +65% winning %’s historically. " Then you yank out your numbers and what do they prove? They prove that YOU think QBR shows "exceptional QB play." They prove that you think the particular number for "exceptional" QB play is 65%. By that measure 10 QBs were "exceptional," this year including Kyler Murray and Brock Purdy. You believe with QBR - your measure for "exceptional," that Brock Purdy was the most exceptional QB in the league and Dak Prescott was #2 in 2023.. QBR is at best questionable and one particular look at a very complicated picture. You have attempted to prove that "Average winning %'s of teams with exceptional QB play supports our record (um, what? Are you using A.I. or something?) independently of other variables. Those teams post +65% winning %'s historically." But you haven't. Put it in words that your stats actually reflect and here's what you've proven: You've proven there's one stat that shows that in the years when a QB has certain score in that stat (but not necessarily in other years for that QB) that there is some correlation with wins. That's it. And while it's something, it's not much and it certainly doesn't prove what you said. The reason I called you out was that your wording was so ridiculous. There's no such thing as a perfect measure for "exceptional QB play," and you didn:t mention any way of deciding what it was. Now we know that you were referring to QBR, a flawed stat, and to specific years, not careers,

Ipso facto, um, nothing. Not the best? Certainly arguable. But "second-rate". Everyone else on the roster and the coaching staff? Um, you've ipsoed not a single facto there that supports your dumb conclusion.

OK, thanks. Now I know you understand. Glad to hear it . Thanks also for moving the goalposts. Yet again. Nobody has argued, that I have noticed, that we have lots of guys better than Allen. We're arguing the stupid part of your argument. You claimed that because none of our roster are as good as Josh Allen, that that means the roster is "of mediocre or inferior quality." Substandard is another one that comes up often. And that is beyond stupid. Are you arguing that other rosters that are just packed with guys who are better than Josh Allen? Because again, contending that is totally and sadly idiotic. If a team that doesn't have anyone as good as Allen is second-rate, there isn't a team that is NOT second-rate. Allen won the MVP. You asked whether anyone on the Bills other than Josh is top two at their position. (The answer is that Taron Johnson and a healthy Matt Milano probably are.) But even assuming we don't have anyone other than Josh, using that as evidence that everyone except Josh is sub-standard meets no standard of logic whatsoever. You asked whether the entire Bills roster is top 2 in talent. Then you use your negative answer as - again - evidence that everyone on the Bills is substandard. Again, this doesn't have the slightest value in showing that. Then you said, "So they are legitimately all second-rate, relatively. Except for Josh." This is spectacularly stupid stuff.

Um, yes, that's my point. They often don't align with each other. And there are structural precepts in making each that work against the Bills. Small-market teams do less well. They are individual awards, which works against the Bills because our units work better than the individuals looked at one-by-one. I love how you picked that stat out of the air. What were you thinking? Something like this? Completely unmeasureable? Check! Disagreement on what "exceptional QB play" is? Check! Yup, there's no way to actually measure it, so ... 65%!!!! No, wait, 65.2% sounds more authorative, um, no it would sound as if I was pulling it out of my hat. Well, we agree 100% there. Claiming all of it is excellent really is off base. Just quick, though, could you point out where I said all of it is excellent? Just real quick? But a C+ roster, even with Josh, simply doesn't get us where we are. Just doesn't happen. Might we win our awful division with a C+ roster and Josh? Yeah, maybe. I mean, 9 games wins that division clean last year, 8 if you get the tie-breakers. So sure, they would be competitive for the division. But would they win 13 games? Like hell. Destroy the Broncos in the playoffs? Nope. Beat 'em? Well, that's possible, but 31-7? Just wouldn't happen. Beat the Ravens? My ass. Play right with the Chiefs? Hell, no. League average? Please Yeah, the defense had a down year. They've been excellent for years. Losing Poyer and Hyde and having Milano and Bernard miss big pieces of the season greatly hurt. When they were both in and playing better the D started to look pretty solid. Put someone like Cousins in our offense and they still play very well. Not as well as they did with Josh, of course, but this OL has been terrific, as has the running game. Well inside the top 10, pretty likely. Of course McDermott's record without Josh is under .500. That's because the huge majority of his games without Josh were in the first two years of his term, when we were rebuilding. The first two years of a rebuild always suck. When you find lists, McDermott's virtually always between 6th and 8th. That's not a B. It's a B+ / A-. Is that what you know? 8 year olds needing a trophy? Fine. I know that there is a big group of folks on here who always need scapegoats, but even when Josh doesn't play well he's always on the list. And I know that coaches are always the easiest scapegoats, coaches and assistants. Even when a team that was supposed to be having a down year instead plays extremely well instead and probably makes the Super Bowl if the refs just mark the ball better on one play, or for that matter if Josh isn't absolutely terrible on the first couple of drives. But no, this group must have scapegoats and we're obviously not a good team despite overachieving. Does Josh make everyone around him better? Sure. Absolutely. So does the whole excellent offensive line, one of the absolute best in the game. So does Cook. So does Ty Johnson. So does Dalton Kincaid, when healthy. So does Shakir. So does Benford. So does Taron Johnson. So do both LBs when healthy, Bernard and Milano. So does Ed Oliver, though not often enough, dang it. So does Rousseau. Is QB the most important position in the game, and the one that has the biggest ability to affect outcomes? Yup. We're lucky to have Josh. We're also lucky to have a bunch of other good players. Wanna see a terrific QB on a roster that's a C+ otherwise? Check out Matt Stafford's career in Detroit. Put him in a good organization and he's competitive. And this Bills team is far far closer to Stafford on the Rams than Stafford on the Lions.

I certainly agree with you there, that was the right play for you. I don't "want to say that doesn't qualify for the definition of 'second rate.'" I'm pointing out the fact that you've either completely mis-used the word or hold views on how bad the Bills are that are completely bughouse. I suspect you haven't gone and checked the actual meaning of that phrase. Applying it to the Bills would be stupid. It's smart that you backed away, though the smarter play yet would simply be to simply say something like, "Yeah, I used the wrong word," and going on to whatever the next battle is. But I'm aware that some people have a really hard time doing that. Yeah, Josh is the best we have. But that doesn't even begin to support, or even be relevant to whether the entire rest of the team is "second-rate." Which again, they are not. The idea is dumb.