Thurman#1

Boldin retired. And they didn't lose a dollar on him. No fault falls on the Bills for that evaluation.

Keeping Benjamin would have meant one more loss of a free agent. Cutting him lowers the number for FAs lost. Also, fifth year option contracts are guaranteed, or at least they are if the guy is still on the roster when the league year starts, and that was months ago. So we don't save any money by cutting him. His salary will still be paid and will go into our official dead cap totals ($68 mill now, Holy Cow!!). So there's a disadvantage to cutting him and no advantage in terms of saved money. What this seems to mean is that they just did not want the guy on this roster. They wanted to get rid of him badly. Very interesting. It sends a message to the locker room, but more, it simply gets Benjamin himself out.

I hear your frustration and the hate for the Pats. But me, I think teams should treat the next game as their Super Bowl. Every week. And that this Bills team should be judged by their improvement and development.

You're right about the eighties. My mistake, I meant the era you referred to, the Butler years, which was the second most recent time they were in serious cap difficulties. Unfortunately, Whaley managed it again. But no, they didn't have $30 mill last offseason, at least not till they did some real cutting to start to dig their way out from under. They went into the offseason with around $16 mill under the cap, which made them 26th or 27th in the league. Only after they cut Tyrod and a few others did they make $30 mill available to themselves, at the cost of a lot of dead money. And no, you don't "need to spend 90% of their cap room over a 3 year period," as you claim. You have to spend 89% over a four year period. And since we have been close to the cap by the end of seasons for years now, this will put very little pressure on us. And even if you did underspend for four years, you don't lose anything except giving back money to the NFLPA. Nobody's forced to spend nutsily to avoid the salary cap floor by these rules. Certainly not from one year of having $40 or $50 mill left over under the cap if that's how they decide to go. And yeah, they could have signed anyone last year ... if they had been willing to dig themselves even further into cap hell. Sure, guys with huge credit card debt can nearly always get a new card or two and dig themselves deeper. It's spectacularly stupid, but possible. Same here. Sure, they could have dove deeper into the crap, but it would've been dumb. Not to mention mistimed. You don't spend a ton on FAs when you're doing a near-complete rebuild. And yeah, back in the 90s the Bills pushed cap debt forward every year ... which is why they then had one of the NFL's all time worst cap situations and were forced to do a massive roster dump leading into the Whitey years. Oh, and speaking of the Whitey years, 2001 to 2005, where are all these high-priced FAs you're claiming he brought in? Your thing about "five years of no cap room," is just ridiculous and off-point. Nobody said it was supposed to last five years, unless maybe you did. Their roster purge got them back in decent cap shape in a couple of years, which is what tends to happen. But they had a 3-win, and 8-win and a 6-win season as a result of having to dump so many players. You rebuild. It's immensely painful and gets the whiners moaning and pissing for two or three years and then if the FO is capable things can get better.

Nonsense. Those teams were just as conservative before they were playing good QBs big money. It's their extremely long-term strategy. The Steelers were doing it back as far as Slash and Neil O'Donnell, Bubby Brister and Mark Malone. The Pats were doing it during Brady's early years when he was unbelievably cheap as a 6th rounder. And the Packers only had Rodgers on a rookie contract for a year or two after he started playing they didn't do anything of that type to help him out in that window. Calling those teams conservative is right smack on the money. Baltimore was conservative far before Flacco was a glint in their eye. The Bills went after Mack? Khalil Mack? Where's the evidence that was anything but due diligence? And yeah, a top tier receiver would help Josh's development. And bringing in another top-tier receiver would've helped Cam Newton early too. But they didn't do that. They brought in receivers by drafting them. It's what they do, as they're conservative. And that bunch of Bills FAs aren't "motley" at all. There are a bunch of lower-priced guys on there but anyone calling a list with Kyle Williams, Jordan Phillips, Lorax, Eddie Yarbrough, and Levi Wallace on it "motley" has some kind of agenda. Yeah, there are some guys on it that will be cheap and some that maybe won't be re-signed but they could easily spend a very decent chunk of change on re-signing the ones they want.

The difference being Mahomes has run 51 times in 12 games this year, which is 4.25 runs per game, while Allen has 57 rushes in 9 appearance that really amount to about eight total games as he played a bit less than a half in game one and a bit more than a half against Houston before the injury. That averages out to 7.1 runs per game. That's why nobody complains that Mahomes needs to run less but they do say it about Allen. Outside of this week's game where he had 9, Mahomes has had one game of 6 and nothing else more than 5. While Allen has had games of 9 and 13 rushes (the last two games) and another earlier game of 10 and another yet of 8. He's tough and capable. I love it, but it's not great long-term strategy. We need to get a line in front of him, five capable guys, and he needs to work more on understanding defenses and getting it out quick.

Perhaps the reason most QB injuries happen in the pocket is that even running QBs spend far more time there than anywhere else. The question is whether injuries per run are more than injuries per play in the pocket. I've never seen a study on that nor do I expect to, but I think it's likely that there are more injuries per run, mitigated by plays where the QB slides or runs out of bounds. But that can't be done every time. And while it's great that he rushed for 95+ in two straight games, it's something that won't mean much unless he develops his pocket passing. If he does, having the ability to run is a terrific alternative defense stressor. On a steady diet of runs, put me down among those who believe it's more dangerous. Tyrod was a terrific running QB too. But not a franchise guy. Running needs to be an optional extra. Not buying that he isn't vulnerable to injury either. Plenty of Josh-sized players get injured every week. He might be a bit harder to injure, but he's not proof against them.

Come on, man, there's a lot more positive out there than negative. You're hearing only the negative. And you're saying Tyrod, Flutie and Fitz were NOT criticized? Seriously? Good grief, I was here and while they got some good reviews too, there was plenty of criticism. Yeah, um, no. Seriously. This whole post except the last sentence.

Yup, the eighties were the last time this franchise was in legitimate cap difficulties ... Except of course the ones we just finally squirmed our way out of, with Whaley spending like a team in a Super Bowl window on a team that was mediocre at best. Next year we'll finally be able to stop worrying about that. But don't expect them to change who they are. "Because we have it" is no reason to spend all the money you have. They are a conservative FO. Might as well get used to it. They make a non-conservative move every once in a great while, but this is who they are. It's what they learned in Carolina, and it's what virtually all the teams that are consistent competitors for titles do. And since being a consistent competitor for titles is their express goal, building through the draft and filling in with non-premium FAs is what you ought to expect. Oh, and after three years under contract, teams can work new contracts, so they will be able to start working out newies for McDermott's first draft right after next year. Not to mention guys like Jordan Phillips, Kyle Williams, Lorax, Groy and Mills (as depth, hopefully), Derek Anderson (as QB mentor), Logan Thomas, Sirles, Eddie Yarbrough, McKenzie, Foster and Levi Wallace who are not signed as yet for next year. Or even Benjamin, though they might easily decide any contract is too much for the guy, even though his price will surely have dropped. They absolutely won't sign all of them but are likely to sign a bunch and could sign guys they want for the long term to front-loaded contracts that will be spend a lot of salary next year and not so much down the road to keep the cap in good shape. They could also use that money to extend guys like Hughes

Fair enough. But the year we brought in Lofton, was it Kelly's second year in the league? Was the offense one of the worst in the league the year before? Or had they gone 12-4 the year before they brought in Lofton? (hint: the answer to this last one is "yes.") Also, the Bills didn't trade for Lofton, they picked him up as an FA, and an FA who wasn't getting a lot of demand.

Ah, I was just coming back to say that, as it popped into my head. The thing about that that makes it reasonable is that he's very young, much younger than Julio. That one might actually work out. I hope not, as I hate Jerry Jones and anything connected with him.

I see. Fair enough. IMHO it will happen again sometime. I just hope it's not us who do it.

We gave up two firsts and more for the pick to select Watkins. I certainly agree with you that it's a bad idea, but that doesn't mean there won't be teams that will do it. But this is a conservative FO, thank goodness. I just can't see them doing this.

He'll be 30 in February. How often have they or the Panthers where they learned their trade brought in one of the top two or three FAs (or expensive trades) of the year? Over 30? While trading away a high pick (from guys who have sworn they will build through the draft)? Standard (and reasonable) wisdom says you can trade away high pick for a QB but you're generally giving away too much at other positions. 100 : 1 shot, is my guess. More, why would the Falcons let him go? Ryan's 33. They don't have time to take a few seasons to get things together. They need to work at winning right now.

... or one season.

Perhaps it's not so much the visitors aren't faring well on Thursday nights. Perhaps it's just a matter of better teams winning. Dallas beating the Saints was the first game on Thursday this year where Vegas didn't correctly pick the game. The eleven home teams that won were all favored. So were the two road teams that won. The better teams won. Thursday has got nothing to do with it. It comes down to Dallas doing a terrific job on defence, physically disrupting pass routes and pressuring Brees. Anyone see any major upsets here? Games that come down to disrupted routines? ATL @ PHI - Philly was a home favorite, and won BAL @ CIN - Cincy were one point home favorites and won NYJ @ CLE - Browns were a home favorite and won MIN @ LAR - Rams 6.5 point home faves and won IND @ NE - Pats home favorites won PHI @ NYG - Philly a road favorite won DEN @ ARI - Denver a small road fave wins MIA @ HOU - Texans 7 point home faves won OAK @ SF - 49ers home favorites won CAR @ PIT - Steelers 3.5 point home faves won GB @ SEA - Seahawks 2.5 point home faves won ATL @ NO - Saints 13 point home faves NO @ DAL - Saints 7 point road faves lose

Miami. They never seem to play with heart and I honestly don't think that's me hating them. In the old days they were a great watch but not for fifteen years or so. I like the Bills this year but for a lot of the last 10 - 15 years I watched only because I was a fan of the team. The Eagles till they got Wentz. The Niners for years till they got Garoffolo. I've always liked watching Larry Fitzgerald, so I can't agree about the Cards.

That's an interesting story about Auburn and the donor. Nuts. Completely nuts, but that's the culture down there. "ingest challenge"? Do you mean biggest challenge? Autocorrect? The 2012 team has plenty to do with this group. Same coach. Same facilities. They won a national championship, which this group has yet to do. They run in Saban's system and both groups beat a few very difficult opponents they also both played a bunch of patsies like The Citadel. Same state, same nuts atmosphere. They had four guys go in the first and five in the top 35 picks in the 2012 draft. They have a ton in common. You're not being conservative. When you are looking at an extremely complex system with a track record of ten or twelve years and you're trying to look three years into an unknowable future with millions of possible variables ... guessing that the future will be significantly higher than the highest past result isn't being conservative. It's sticking your neck out. And no, Jerry Jeudy isn't the best receiver in the country. That would be Antonio Brown, probably. Or maybe Julio Jones or Adam Thielen or Michael Thomas. A few other guys might be in the discussion, but not Jerry Jeudy. After Jeudy becomes eligible and gets drafted and spends months of OTAs and full-time study rather than working around the classwork which is required of him now and goes through training camp he might become a very fine receiver. It probably won't happen in his first game, and certainly wouldn't if his first game happened, say, sometime in the next few weeks and his QB was dealing with a pro DL like ours while being protected by guys like he has in front of him now, OLs with a lot of potential and no knowledge of the pro game. And while there is a limited "make the problem go away" factor, the NCAA has a say in this. Big schools have had NCAA problems before. And programs that seemed all-powerful (Miami in the eighties and very early 90s and then again in the early noughties) were brought down to earth. Unpredictable stuff happens. Injuries happen. Drug scandals happen. Crimes happen. Sexual accusations happen. Stuff happens.

Yup. And probably a couple of years down the road we'll know how both of those comparisons panned out. So far, JuJu has had a lot faster start in much better conditions and Edmunds looking slower-developing than Vander Esch but with as much or more potential. Too early to know how either turned out but the JuJu comparison looks more likely to come out Pittsburgh's way in the long run. And the long run is all I care about in the present situation. But as long as Zay lives up to his draft spot this won't be anything to hold against the FO. And he does look like he's beginning to be worth the pick.

I think he missed the words, "on the field too early" rather than "terrible." Or "Poorly handled", maybe. Fifth round QBs or guys in that area don't generally do much, but when they do it's generally because they're allowed to sit and figure the NFL out. Look at Brunell. Yeah, you get occasional Bradys who only sat for a year and a half or more or even Steve Grogans who played his first year, but generally with guys like Gannon, Rypien, Brad Johnson, Theismann, Hasselbeck, Trent Green ... I like McDermott and Beane so far, they seem like smart cookies who are mostly making good moves. But it would be hard to argue they handled the QB situation well. Other than drafting Allen and giving us at least a chance in the future, anyway. In any case, Milano is looking like a great pick.

Occasionally for Murph's interviews. Otherwise almost never, and I was a very frequent visitor there. It really wasn't. It had good folks bad folks and lots of pretty solid folks. Much the same as here.

I'm really NOT making your point, dude. You're picking the best possible example, the last three years. It's just as legit to pick, say the 2012 championship team that had 25 Alabama guys drafted the next three years. You just don't know this. You don't, and you're kidding yourself if you think you do. Picking the highest of all possible past outcomes, and then saying the future will be higher ... simply isn't a conservative way to make a prediction. You said you made a conservative prediction. You didn't. 30+ is certainly possible but if you'd bet your house on that ("any amount of money") you're very clearly not being conservative. And to repeat for like the third time ... the most mature of the group will be pros ... a year from now and after six to seven months of training and learning virtually full time in the pro system. The next oldest group will be pros two years from now and the rest will be three or more years from now. They're not pros now. As of now they've been identified - many or most of them - as having future pro potential. Many of them will be busts or guys that don't make a team in the long term, history shows. You make a good point about the nutrition, that's interesting, but it's a small factor in all of the mass of advantages that NFL players have. And no, football isn't their life, these college players. They still have to take and pass classes. Yeah, football's the most important part of their life, for many or most of them anyway, but they still have to do far more off-point stuff than pros do and have far more limitations on what football activities they can do. NCAA rules allow athletes to spend no more than 20 hours a week on required athletic activities, "Countable Athletically Related Activity". Yes, some activities are not counted, so that's not a strict cap on all football activities, of course. But NFL limitations are not nearly as restrictive. Here's the offense and ages/years: Jerry Jeudy 19 true soph Henry Ruggs true soph Devonta Smith 165 pounds , 20 true soph Jonah Williams Jr. 21 this week true junior Deonte Brown red-shirt soph Ross Pierschbacher red-shirt senior Alex Leatherwood true sophomore Jedrick Wills true soph (TE - Hback) Irvin Smith Jr true junior (TE) Hale Hentges true senior Tua Tagovailoa 20, true soph Damien Harris 21 true senior That's the offense. It was interesting to me to find that it's not easy to find ages for some of these guys. But you can still get a sense by their year where they are. Plenty of these guys aren't even eligible by age and college experience for the NFL. They're young. EDIT: found a much quicker way to find this, so I thought I'd do the defense too. Buggs soph transfer Williams red-shirt soph Davis true junior Jennings red-shirt junior Miller red-shirt senior Wilson true junior Moses true soph Smith junior transfer Thompson red-shirt junior McKinney true sophomore Surtain true freshman Carter true junior Again, young. Their QB is very young and an NFL team would doubtless throw extremely complex defenses at him and pressure him with a ton of stunts blitzes and complex and shifting coverages. When he's been in the NFL a couple of years he may well begin to be able to handle that. Not now, though. I'd say 50 - 6.

You're right, Gunner, I'm not making the argument you refer to in your first paragraph. But what I am arguing goes beyond your summation. Yeah, smarts and experience are a huge advantage. But so is the simple maturation of human bodies, not to mention pure strength being a result of consistent effort over time ... and time is something these college guys have had an absolute ton less of than NFL guys. More, the NFL is able to put far more complex systems into use, particularly on offense, but on defense too. What's the average age of NFL players? I'm sure I could find different numbers, because it doubtless goes up and down a fraction each year, but in this story it's reported as 26.6 and that's probably pretty close to what you'd find in nearly any year. http://www.espn.com/esports/story/_/id/20733853/the-average-age-esports-versus-nfl-nba-mlb-nhl Now look at the average year of a college roster and don't count the guys who never play. Obviously I can't come up with an exact number on this but it's probably somewhere around 19, maybe a lowish 20. Take the starters and that would probably trend a bit higher. There are a few guys who take a red-shirt year and stay on a team for five years but that's just not a common enough move to sway the average much, I think. So, an average college team's starters would average 20, maybe? Am I wrong? Now put 26.6 year olds against 20 year olds, both on a consist weight program. Who's going to be stronger? And will it be a little bit stronger or very significantly stronger? Look at the ages of Olympic champions. It differs from sport to sport and between genders as well, but there are very few champions who are college age. That relates to strength, though it also relates to time under coaching and many factors, but the point stands. One of many studies here: https://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/61889/1/jhse_Vol_11_N_1_31-41.pdf Throw in the fact that as you say the pros'll have a ton more experience and will be operating in much more complex systems due to the inexperience of college guys and the much more limited amount of time available for coaching and learning and NFL coaches simply have an awful lot more they can put into their playbooks and systems in terms of complexity and detail. Fair enough that this doesn't have to be Buffalo. A game between Alabama and any bottom-level pro team would not be even slightly close.

No, he doesn't bypass losses by pointing to a process. But neither does McDermott. Does Belichick have a process and talk about it? Um, yeah. "We've just gotta keep stringing days together, take advantage of our opportunities to go out there and improve, and trust the process." - Bill Belichick. https://www.patriots.com/video/bill-belichick-8-3-trust-the-process Check out 00:53 in the video. That definition - bypassing losses by pointing to a process - is *****. That's not what the process is about. It's where we often hear the word, because when you're winning people ask you about other things and you want to talk about other things. Good teams and players have a process. When you're losing, you want to tell people what you're doing to change that. And there are a lot of ways to say the same thing. Working the process is one, but you could as easily say, "We're on the path to success," or "We're working on consistent improvement," or "We're following the plan," or "We've got a long way to go, but we're going," or a million other variations. That's not an excuse or a way to bypass things. It's telling people what you're doing. There's nothing wrong with it. Does Belichick have a process? Yup. Does he bypass losses? Yup, and wins too. He's always on to the next game, which is part of his process, and really the process of any franchise that wins consistently. Tim Ferriss: LeBron, if you look for instance at the big names that came into the league at the same time that you did, it's staggering to see how few of them are still playing, and yet here you are playing as the best in the NBA. Are there any particular approaches you've taken or things that you attribute that to? LeBron James: Well, I can't speak on any other players or anybody who came in around my time or a little bit after me or not to far from when I came in but I know me personally, I've just been very consistent with the process. I've been very consistent with training my body, rehabbing my body ... https://content.production.cdn.art19.com/episodes/b97b91ba-c496-46a0-8e2b-08544e9c0f15/38dce2e66bba2b23bdf56993e60c9e75da8eca0bb758f9633a0ee72f82226bc92b0b4fe63e736798f6d6623d4eee7cb604ec189d276f0e98a40206b658f44854/TheTimFerrissShow_Lebron James_.mp3 Go to 16:30 in the audio. Only in Buffalo do people associate "the process" with McDermott.

They are certainly the best program in college for producing NFL guys. No question. And more so on defense. But we're talking offense also, not just defense. But just looking at your list and how those guys were earlier in college: Mosley was terrific in 2013 and 2012. 2011 ... really not so much. Clinton-Dix had 5 INTs in his last year, and 0 in his other college year of play. Landon Collins had 99 tackles in his final year, and 3 INTs, 68 tackles and 2 INTs in his 2nd last year nad 17 tackles and 0 INTs in his first Ragland had 102 tackles and 2.5 sacks as a senior, 93 tackles and 1.5 sacks as a junior and 17 tackles and 0 sacks as a soph. A'Shawn Robinson seems to have been almost as good a player as a soph as he was later. Jarran Reed started for two years and was very good in both. Cyrus Jones didn't play defense in 2012, had a limited impact in 2013 and played quite well in 2014. Allen played all four years at Alabama and was an awful lot better the last two. "The first 3 on it [Mosley, Clinton-Dix and Collins] were all pro-bowlers within 3 years," you say. Yeah, within three years, but that's within four years of their last year in college. Only Mosley was a first year Pro Bowl guy. Clinton-Dix played in all 16 games but started 10, picking up a bunch of tackles but few impact plays as a rookie, 1 INT, 0 forced fumbles, 1 sack, 1 tackle for loss and 2 QB hits. 6 passes defensed. And the Clinton-Dix in this theoretical Bills game was a year younger and less prepared than the rookie Clinton-Dix. Same with SS Landon Collins as a rook. A bunch of tackles but few impact plays. How would he have performed in this theoretical game as a college soph or junior? A'Shawn Robinson started five games as an NFL rookie. Jarran Reed looks very good this year in Seattle but as a rookie he was mostly promising. Is Marlon Humphrey any good? He's started 11 games in his two NFL years. I honestly don't know. You folks tell me. Jonathan Allen had the Lisfranc injury in Week 6 of his rookie year so it's hard to say what he could have done. Decent this year, but also seems a bunch improved over last year. Reuben Foster? Ryan Anderson hasn't started one game in his two years. That's the first half of your list, in order. How do they do as rookies? Now how would they have done a year before that? Or two or three years before that? So you wouldn't argue that Alabama doesn't produce fine players. They do. But plenty of them take a while to get started and many started a year or two or three at Alabama and weren't the same early in their careers. I may not be disagreeing with your main point much, but I thought your list was a good starting point to discuss the time it takes to improve, both in college and in the NFL.