Thurman#1

Hey Shaw. Always enjoy your stuff. Yeah, I went off about Taylor. You did bring him up in your OP. I wouldn't have mentioned him if you hadn't. If you mention something in the OP, surely you have to expect that people might want to comment on it, sometimes extensively. And again, it's NOT $18 million in cap to keep Taylor. It's $23 million. $18 million this year and about $5.5 mill next in dead cap when he's gone. One year of Tyrod play for $23 mill. So the other guy would have to cost $15 mill to make it the same cap hit. And Tyrod is not going to be here after that, whereas another guy could stay here as a QB whisperer/mentor. Some guys fit that role, but I don't think Tyrod fits it or would be interested in it. Tyrod isn't a good match for the Bills right now. They want a guy who can throw from the pocket consistently. Keep Tyrod and we'll hear yet more of the "adjust the offense to fit the guy who can't run the kind of offense they want to build" stuff. And I have to disagree with you that we don't know whether this regime is the type to open their wallets. They come from Carolina, a team which handles it's cap money in a very intelligent way, frankly a Patsian way. They don't bring in big-ticket FAs. They bring in small- to middle-size contracts in FA to fill holes and they build through the draft. And in their time here in Buffalo they have been extremely abrupt about radically upgrading this team's cap status. They brought this team from moderately severe cap trouble to a team without a lot of cap money right now, near the middle of the league with around $30 mill, but with no real cap problems going forward. They traded and cut guys who were going to cost a lot in the future. They brought in low- to mid-tier FAs, doing very well with the safeties in particular. They've followed the blueprint. I'd argue we already know what kind of guys they are. They've said they want to build through the draft and they've continued playing the cap game and the FA game exactly the way the Panthers - and the Pats and Steelers and Pack and frankly the best teams year in and year out do it. $18 million in dead cap in 2018 (not yet including Wood) shows the price they were willing to pay to get this team on a good financial footing going forward. They'll be at or very very near the top of the league in dead cap this year because they cleared the decks. The Packers and Pats do write bigger FA checks to keep their own guys that they know fit the system, Brady and Rodgers certainly included. That's part of that FA script that the Pack, the Pats, the Steelers, the Panthers, the Niners, etc. use. You don't sign your own guys indiscriminately, but for guys at important positions in your scheme who play at a high level and already know the system, yeah, you pay the big bucks to bring some guys back. But writing a big check to keep your elite QB is a radically different thing to writing a big check to bring in a new and very expensive FA QB. When have the Pats or Pack done that, even going back 20 or 30 years to the very beginning of free agency? I just don't see it. Could be wrong of course, but I really don't think so. And as I say, I'd love to see them bring in Cousins. I just don't think they will, for these reasons.

Wouldn't mind Alex Smith at all. Or Bridgewater, who I think will be available. But as for the warts on the draft guys, that's just part of the process, it's what always happens this time of year. People quickly forget but two years ago people were coming out with how now that they saw all the scouting that Wentz and Goff just weren't as good as everyone had thought, and weren't worth trading up for. This is what happens every year. Every single guy in the history of the world has an upside and a downside and when people read the downside they get cold feet. It's always a risk. It's a risk worth taking. Wouldn't mind Smith and a tradeup for a draft guy so he can sit and learn for a while.

Minus the money we would be saving on Tyrod, the salary and the roster bonus.

I disagree with this, personally. Not least with your facts. Five out of six AFC teams in the playoffs this season weren't in the playoffs last season? Pats, Steelers and Chiefs both years, yeah? The Steelers the last four years in a row and the Chiefs the last three. I'd put the Steelers in as a dynasty, the Pack as long as Rodgers is healthy, which he generally is. Probably Atlanta and maybe Carolina. I'm guessing now that New Orleans has gotten past their cap squeeze that they're starting a little dynasty which should last till Brees retires, though I could certainly be wrong about that. There are a bunch of teams that have made the playoffs say four out of the last six years. You could even maybe throw in KC. Yeah, you see turnover. But generally it's a team sneaking in as fodder, or for teams that really do make the transition from crap to creme, it's generally the result of three or four years of consistent hard work good personnel acquisition and continuity finally hitting a tipping point. The Rams are a good example. They've been putting together an excellent defense for years now, they got their QB last year and had a year of development for him.

Tyrod's top 22 or 23, probably. And will cost $23 mill for a year. $18 mill this year and $5 mill dead money next. For a guy who will never be the guy who can play from the pocket that they have said they want. Against $8.6 mill dead cap this year and none next year if they cut him, and $7.6 mill dead cap this year and none next year if they trade him. I just don't think this is as difficult a decision as some seem to think. As for what to do? I personally want them to do what they can do to trade up and get a guy early, assuming they think there's someone there they like. I want them to draft a guy who has a good shot at being a top ten guy. IMHO the difference between top ten and top five isn't very predictable beforehand, outside of the occasional Peyton Manning / Andrew Luck type guy. So if my guy turns out to be top five ... terrific, but don't hold off till there's a guy there who's predictably top five. That could be a wait for years. And I'd love to see them get Cousins but I think you left off your decision tree their attitude towards money, which seems to be downright Patsian and Packian. And I don't mind that, it's the most likely way to achieve success in the long run. But I don't see them springing for Cousins, though I would. IMHO there's a chance though not a great one that they pick up Bridgewater or Alex Smith. I would like to see that. But the finances / trade price may well be prohibitive. My best guess is a cheaper vet guy to be the bridge and transition into the QB mentor, a guy like Fitz or McCown. Oh, and if they don't like what they're able to get early, I hope they deal one of this year's 1st round picks back to a crappy team for next year's 1st and some extra booty, like maybe a 3rd or 4th this year. That'd give us a shot at trading up next year. I do agree that it's a complex decision with a lot of interesting junction points. I'm not smart enough to be anywhere near sure what they'll do.

Yeah, very similar. Both Peterman and Mahomes have two eyes, for example. Both of them breathe consistently. Both of them are football players. Yeah, you're really on to something here. I like Peterman but these two players have totally different kinds of styles. I get it, you're trolling, but you could at least do it well.

You're right, because when they signed Ninkovich to an extension in 2016, he was in his 11th year, not his 9th like Wood. Signed the extension in 2016, in Feb. extending through the 2017 season and then retired in July before the season, costing them a bunch of dead money. It's not a mistake. It's a cost of playing the game. And the Pats do it same as everyone else. They've ended up with dead money from Jerod Mayo (re-structured him in April 2015 and cut him in Feb. 2016) , from Scott Chandler, and it would be easy to go on and on with guys like Revis, Mankins and Kyle Arrington who cost them $12.5 mill in dead money in one year between them. Ouch. Hang in there, and good luck. So far, the Gillislee contract hasn't proved a good one for them, but it wasn't $30 mill. $6.4 mill over 2 years. Was that a typo? Did you mean $3+ mill per year? In any case, hasn't worked out for them.

This is just not a good post. It implies that they saw the problem earlier - utterly ridiculous to assume they saw anything dangerous and let him play - or alternately that giving a 9th year guy an extension is never a good idea - just flat-out dumb. The extension was reasonable. And poor Wood was unlucky, as were the Bills.

Zierlein's one of the better evaluators around. Predicting the draft order is impossible, but he gives good and interesting evaluations.

Here's the 55th to 63rd picks this last year: Giants Dalvin Tomlinson (16 starts) Raiders Obi Melifonwu (1 start, 5 games played) Texans Zach Cunningham (13 starts, 16 games played) Seahawks Ethan Pocic (11 starts, 16 played) Chiefs Tanoh Kpassagnon (1 start, 16 played) Cowboys Chidobe Awuzie (6 starts, 10 played) Packers Josh Jones (7 starts) Steelers JuJu Smith-Schuster (7 starts, 14 played) Bills Dion Dawkins (11 starts, 16 played) That's only one guy who started all sixteen. And only three with over seven starts. It's certainly possible, but third rounders often need a bit of seasoning.

If they trade back, it ought to be for a higher pick next year, maybe this year's 2nd for a 1st from another team. This year, they ought to get a QB, a really good one, and if that means trading up then do it. After that, trading down for more picks is almost always a great idea, but they ought to start a conveyor belt for 1st rounders. If we have one of our 1sts left (and honestly I hope we don't after trading up and getting a QB, but if we do), we should trade for maybe a 3rd or 4th this year and a 1st next year.

Please. There wasn't a single mention of this problem till people had had a chance to watch it in super slo-mo twenty-three times and notice that there's no way to tell. The whole controversy did not start till hours after the game. In real time on TV it wasn't just close it was indistinguishable.

All else being equal, yeah. The more shots you take the better your chances. But who do you mean by "a good veteran"? Cousins? I just don't see them paying for him, though I'd love it, myself. Alex Smith? Yeah, I would like to see them get Alex and at the same time draft someone high. Teddy Bridgewater? Again, I'd love to see them get him and draft someone high and let the two of them fight it out for a few years. The "good veterans" take a drop in quality after that, IMHO. Yeah, I can see Tyrod still being here next year. If he takes another pay cut in a renegotiation. And if McDermott becomes ill and misses the season. Kinda kidding about the last bit there, but there's a chance and it's really small. 5%, maybe? That twitter nonsense there cracked me up. How do you "neutralize" for "precipitation"? Take a guess and shove in a somewhat random multiplier to the actual numbers, basically. Same with an awful lot of the other stuff he's "neutralizing" for. They want someone who plays in a different style from Tyrod. And since it would cost us $15 mill more against the cap to keep him ($10 mill this year nad $5 mill dead money in 2019) it just simply isn't likely they keep a guy they actively tried to replace. I don't think it's as simple as you're saying here, Shaw. Smith sure didn't play like a bridge this year. But agreed that Cousins is not a bridge, and should and will cost more money.

That's just not true. "Bad accuracy" is greatly overstating it. If his accuracy were actually bad, he wouldn't be being mentioned as a possible first rounder, or even as draftable. He has issues at times and is certainly not consistently highly accurate. Completion percentage does not equal accuracy. There is no stat for accuracy anymore than there is for football smarts or for And at the Senior Bowl what's being said about him is that sometimes he's very accurate and other times not so much so. Same as what's generally said about him. Quick example from Joe Buscaglia today: "This is the ‘arm talent’ from Wyoming QB Josh Allen that has these teams intrigued by his potential. In between three defenders for a TD." Has a GIF of a beautiful throw. And there's plenty of those kinds of throws being shown by him at the Senior Bowl. But yeah, not with enough consistency. I'm not pulling for or against the guy but there's a great deal of exaggeration particularly of his negatives these days.

QB and pass rusher.

Nobody is on the depth chart, not a single name. It says, "To be announced later." http://www.buffalobills.com/team/depth-chart.html Shaq is on the roster. But he's on the part at the bottom headlined "Reserve/Injured." http://www.buffalobills.com/team/roster.html And not all 4-3s are created equal. He fitted Rex's D (not a 3-4, the 46 is a bit wackier than the 3-4) very well, which is why Rex jumped up and down on the table for him. As for being outplayed, the evidence belies that. He was placed on IR in early December after an ankle injury against the Pats. At that time, his snaps per game were well above anyone else they had at that position, well above. He might be gone soon, but if so it'll be because he didn't fit well so waiting for him to develop didn't make sense.

T.O.'s un-retiring. He and Anquan Boldin are coming!!!

This early in his career it wouldn't be a bust. It'd be another casualty of the scheme switch.

Conferences don't matter. They just don't. Was a Delaware Blue Hen going to win the Super Bowl? Or a Northern Iowa Panther? Not until they did. Those trends last only till they're broken. Don't sit, for God's sakes!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If we don't trade up and there's nobody we like there, please, please, please, trade this year's first for a next year's first and some extra booty. Hopefully with a team likely to suck next year.

It isn't a sure thing. People said the same thing about Aaron Rodgers. We don't know what's going to happen. We just don't. We can make educated guesses and some things are near certain, like that Darnold and Rosen are unlikely to make it out of the top eight. But stuff could happen.

No. Letting the play go on affects the outcome. If they had let the play continue that would have been the same as making the call that the player had not been touched down. Whereas the ref actually believed and saw the opposite. The replays were totally inconclusive, so NY couldn't overturn, so you would have had an official who believes the play had ended and yet the TD would have counted. A bad result when the guy with the best view believed the opposite. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the refs are NOT told to let the play continue. They are told to call it as they see it. If they believe the guy is down they should blow the whistle. If they believe he isn't down they shouldn't. And that makes sense. "The official who blew the play dead may have had a better view than the TV cameras of where Jack and Lewis were at the time Jack recovered the fumble, or he may have just assumed Jack was touched down because he saw Jack and Lewis going to the ground right next to each other. If the officials would err on the side of letting a play go, it would allow replay to fix any mistakes. But when asked about the play, the league office told PFT that officials are supposed to call what they see, and not let a play go just because they might get corrected on replay." http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/01/22/quick-whistle-may-have-robbed-myles-jack-of-a-fumble-recovery-touchdown/

Yeah, he addressed that with Joe B. Said he wasn't hired in time to deal with this in a way he'd have preferred. So maybe he'd have brought in other guys at the positions involved, in the draft or keeping bills FAs or bringing in lower level guys. Didn't have time to do that last year. But - and this is what I love - he will be concerned with this in the future. Comp picks aren't a huge deal. But when you make good decisions on a lot of smaller issues, that's when teams improve. This is an issue that affects bot the talent pool and the salary cap - drafted guys are cheaper. And they're finally going to start doing things the way the smart teams do. I love it.

Newton doesn't have top-notch accuracy. And he was the MVP one year. So that's not reality, it's a slanted view. Roethlisberger's pretty accurate but not really highly accurate. That's not what his game is built around. He's accurate enough. You can't be inaccurate, but there's really only one Drew Brees. Allen isn't inaccurate. He's also not highly accurate. Is he accurate enough? Can he improve? Nobody knows for sure. Certainly not me. But equally, certainly not you. I agree with you this far, I'd much rather have a guy with elite decision-making and accuracy than elite arm strength. If we can get one, I'm all for it, but those guys don't grow on trees.

https://www.wkbw.com/sports/bills/joe-b-7-senior-bowl-takeaways-from-buffalo-bills-hc-sean-mcdermott-and-gm-brandon-beane?page=2 "6) The Bills will be in on the compensatory picks in 2019- For the first time since the subject was broached over and over again this year, Bills GM Brandon Beane finally admitted that he couldn’t do anything about getting the compensatory selections for Stephon Gilmore and Robert Woods in 2018 because “it was too far to do anything about it” when he walked in the door after the 2017 NFL Draft. But make no mistake — that will not be repeated by the Bills this offseason if Beane has any say about it. The Bills GM is a big believer in taking advantage of the compensatory picks when his team has a chance for them and admitted that they will be very cognizant of the moves they make with respect to that formula. That, along with Beane still being hesitant about their cap situation being where he wants it, leads me to believe that the Bills won’t be swinging big on free agency, and will likely sign players below the compensatory pick threshold." At last, somebody gets it. Extra picks are extra chances. They're important, the smart teams value them, and Beane understands this. Excellent!! And this tells us something about which FAs we'll try to pursue, as well.

No, they don't let it play out, not if they think it was down. Doing so - not calling it down even if you think it is - is actually making a call on the field that it was not down, which means that incontrovertible evidence of the opposite is necessary to overturn it. They're taught that if they think it's down they should whistle it dead. In other words, not whistling the play dead is in effect making the call that the player was not down. "The official who blew the play dead may have had a better view than the TV cameras of where Jack and Lewis were at the time Jack recovered the fumble, or he may have just assumed Jack was touched down because he saw Jack and Lewis going to the ground right next to each other. If the officials would err on the side of letting a play go, it would allow replay to fix any mistakes. But when asked about the play, the league office told PFT that officials are supposed to call what they see, and not let a play go just because they might get corrected on replay." http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/01/22/quick-whistle-may-have-robbed-myles-jack-of-a-fumble-recovery-touchdown/ -------- Wouldn't be a bit surprised if there had been serious conclusive evidence on those tapes they destroyed. I think that's why they got the big punishment for DeflateGate when the evidence was strong but absolutely left room for reasonable doubt. I think they did it in both cases, myself. But again, I don't doubt the Pats try to cheat. But the idea that the league cheats to favor them is absolutely ridiculous.