Thurman#1

Because the salary cap is not real, that's the ... oh, wait. Turns out it is very very real indeed. That's why. Simple. Painful. The timing for this isn't a mistake. They could have waited weeks, months. They are doing this as they try to get under the cap. They are doing it before the bonuses are due, and before they are able to see who will be available to replace these guys. Not knowing is a disadvantage, but a disadvantage that is partially offset by the ability to not pay bonuses, even small ones, and to be able to keep or bring in other, cheaper guys. Makes 'em worse right now. But they have to get younger. It can work in the long run. Having Josh on the team makes it more likely that it will. But they have to be replaced on the team with cheap FAs, draft picks and UFAs. The selections have to be right in a large percentage of the time. And if the team looks worse, especially early in the year, that's just what happens. You can't get around it.

Does he really? Wow. The hosts must love it, as occasional nuts and fruitcakes make great radio.

Right. Because Dan Marino, for instance. The guy who drafted him lasted the length of Marino's career, didn' ... oh, sorry. Kinda proved myself wrong there. Take Archie Manning. Oh, no, wait. Jim Kelly. Oh, no. Philip Rivers? Fran Tarkenton? Warren Moon? Dan Fouts? Matt Ryan? No. Because that idea is simply wrong. Finding the right QB is a huge step in the right direction. Thinking the rest is a foregone conclusion is flat-out nuts. (If I'm taking you way way too seriously here, apologies. Some here really seem to believe this, though. Which may well be your point if you were poking fun.)

Yeah, extremely difficult, and there is an absolute ton of uncertainty built into the system. I'd argue you've overstated this in a couple of specifics. It's not impossible at all to come up with a plan. I'm absolutely sure that every single GM does it. It's anything but impossible. But yeah, no plan will be precisely on target. All NFL plans have to have back-up plans, back-ups to the back-ups and back-ups to those tertiaries as well. Every plan will have to be incrementally adjusted again and again and again. The other minor gripe I have there is that I think that after asking McDermott, Brady and Babich were asked about guys they needed or did not need, they might indeed say, " "It depends on who you bring in to help fill the spots that will become vacant." But they would then continue with, "But having said that," and reams and reams of ideas, requests and suggestions. (Which while helpful might also make the puzzle even more complex.) Oh, and yeah, that Von Miller move was a huge risk, looking to be either a brilliant move that could bring championships, yet make our cap situation a lot worse. If he'd stayed healthy, IMO we'd have at least one Lombardi by now. But he didn't, and the cap consequences bit deep just the same as if he'd been healthy. No way to predict the injury, though I'm 100% sure they knew it was a realistic risk, but worth taking. Sigh. And I think you might be underselling the difficulty and uncertainty involved in the draft process. Even if your scouting is perfect, there's no way to rule out the guys you want and need from being picked ahead of you, particularly if someone trades ahead of you. Overall I think you're dead right. Immensely complex job, requiring tons of work, brains, extreme flexibility and adaptability and an understanding that even the best in your job make and have to accept responsibility for mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake, and that few other jobs have so many people hanging on your smallest decisions ready to criticize within minutes, fairly and unfairly. Great stuff.

Trade? Geez, no. Extend? Definitely could be if it makes financial sense. Really. Going on social media - essentially to say "nyah nyah" - after the game has zero correlation to playing better because you're more motivated. I didn't like it either. But it is not important to the Chiefs performance.

People immediately think first rounder, for obvious reasons. But could just as easily move us up in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th. Or that they actually want more picks and will just use this pick in the 5th.

Jackson Powers Johnson, here we come.

It means quite a bit. But yeah, it's not exact. And it will always be a little difficult to separate guys on the same team. But first, this group of guys is the one we met with at the combine. That alone is pretty big. And while some of the indicators are team indicators, some are individual. And others help narrow it down. There's an extra point if the offensive coordinator goes to an offensive player's game, and vice versa for defense. A meeting at the Senior Bowl isn't a team indicator, but gets points here. And as the process unfolds, Pro days and 30 visits will help make things more individual. All three Texas players score 3. Which is the among the lowest grades. That might be very indicative. The interview scores, obtained from Kindig's contacts around the league as I understand it, can also be indicative as the Bills really do value good interviews and football-smart guys. It's certainly not a be-all and end-all, but it can help.

It's Astro time again? Alllllllllllllllll righty then!!! Always great stuff!!

Nope. Totally ignoring the money, it still doesn't make sense. But with the massive dead money hit this would cause it makes even less. Spotrac has the first potential out year as the offseason after 2025.

The Julio Jones trade didn't work out. It was a lot better than the trade up for the pick that brought us Watkins, but not successful. Jones was a terrific player but the idea was that the only way you trade away that much value is if he's the last piece to bring a championship. He wasn't. They'd gone 13-3 the year before they traded up for Julio. After that, it was 10-6, 13-3, 4-12, 6-10, 8-8, 11-5, 10-6, 7-9, 7-9, 4-12, 7-10, 7-10, and 7-10. If they had beaten the Pats in that SB, there would have been a legit argument that that trade worked out. But they didn't. And part of the reason they didn't win that SB was that they were so infatuated with the passing game that they threw away the trophy with bad time management by not running.

No thanks. Not even close. There's no steep drop-off after the top three this year. There's a drop-off, but it's small. Definitely not worth giving up 1st or 2nd day picks. If one of the top three fell to 22 or so, I'd start to be interested. But that seems wildly unlikely. Yes. Exactly this. Yes. Make the team overall better.

Your question has already been addressed, and very well. But if I can kick in another few words? Take a look at a specific example that's real. Connor McGovern got void years. Go look at his Spotrac page. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/connor-mcgovern-29126/ If you take a look at the top, you'll see that the contract terns say, "3 yr(s) / $22,350,000". So the total amount of the contract is $22,350,000. 2026 is the first void year, 2025 the last real year. So go look at the table, and near the right side you'll find a column labelled "Yearly Cash." That tells how much actual cash the player will actually receive that year. And Spotrac keeps a running count on how much has been spent total. If you look in the Yearly Cash column for the year 2025, the figure in parentheses gives you the total the Bills will have given to McGovern in cash by the end of the 2025 season (assuming he plays with us through 2025). That total is $22,350,000. He will have received all of his money by the end of the real contract. The figures in that table for the void years are only already-paid bonuses that have not yet been amortized on the cap. They have nothing to do with real cash money still being paid at that point, and everything to do with cap money.

Not 100% sure what that sentence means, but you seem (to me) to be saying that void years are beneficial to the cap. They are not. Total overall cap will be the same. They are just another way of improving THIS YEAR'S CAP by borrowing from future cap years. It's not improving the cap. It's making this year's cap figure better, while making future years cap figures worse by the same amount. Once the actual cash has been paid, it MUST be accounted for against the cap. Once you've paid a signing bonus, a roster bonus, an option bonus, whatever there's no way to avoid the entire amount of that bonus from being charged against the cap. There are only ways to borrow from future years. This is just a way to take money actually paid one year and have some of it hit the cap later.

Seventh in yards allowed, despite being consistently put in awful positions by their awful offense. 5th in defensive DVOA. They're absolutely good to great on defense. Maybe closer to good than great, but probably closer to very good than good.

Yeah, it's possible, and not barely possible. An awful lot will depend on the QB. With Cousins, very possible. Me, I'd rather see them bring in Cousins than draft a guy and do a good job with the pick.

IMO they've been traits guys with production. Not elite production, not after #25, but production. Kincaid had 510 yards and 8TDs in '21 and 890 and 8 more in '22. That's serious production for a TE. Elam didn't have a ton of INTs in college by any means but he started and performed very well for two years. I even think it's true of Rousseau despite his missing out on his senior year because of COVID. 15.5 sacks in what should have been his second-last season, and really solid play. Epenesa produced. You're right that they go for traits early, but not traits without production, I would argue.

It really isn't. It could very well be a pass. But it isn't easy. IMO he's not the Bills type at edge, although his build is Vonnish. We tend to draft long guys who can play the run as well. Which does tend to leave us a team without pass-rushing freaks. My guess is he's a part of the four to six guys they'd consider if they're not moving up or back. Maybe not, but maybe. But it's true he doesn't seem to be the type they take in the draft at edge. But I disagree that he doesn't have much to show for all of this. Not many sacks. But a lot of pressures. That's not nothing or nothing much. It's a thing. I agree with you that I'd rather see more sacks. But if he had more sacks, we wouldn't be talking about him because he'd clearly be a top 10 or 15 guy. Guys who fall to the mid to late 20s have something wrong with them, some question or questions. It's the way it is.

The drop-off for edge is a lot sooner and more precipitous than the drop at WR this year. A lot of good WRs deep this year. Edge not nearly so much.

I hear you, but he wasn't really backpedalling. He said he did not "have talks" with them. And he said he "had already talked to" them. Those aren't necessarily the same thing. He might have said, "Come get me," to Veach and Reid on the field after a game and they smiled but didn't say anything. Those two statements aren't necessarily contractictory.

I can't imagine it's tampering for a GM or coach to be talked to about this. How can they control what people say to them? The GM or coach talking back, now that they can control. But Hardman I don't think said anything about that.

"Ending his career," and he doubtless doesn't imagine it will be ending soon. Nothing wrong with that at all. He didn't say anything bad about Buffalo. Just good about his childhood team.

Oh, I don't see anything wrong with this. I don't agree with him. But he's saying he thinks the two younger guys get better and take Douglas' job. I disagree, but for two young guys to take a big leap in their third years is possible. Big enough to take Douglas' job? I disagree, myself, but he's got a right to his opinion.

I don't think so. Douglas and Benford are good. Benford played really well the second half of the year. His injury for the playoff game was a big factor in the defense not being good enough. He just wasn't himself. But yeah, depending who's still on the roster, we might definitely need some new depth guys. Elam is good? Where's the proof? Elam needs to play? No, no he doesn't. Hopefully he plays well enough in the off-season that they can't keep him off the field. But if he doesn't, he absolutely does not need to play. What he needs to do, he needs to earn the right to play.

Yes, agreed. A trade is still not likely, IMO, but far more likely than cutting him. Agreed also that if cut it would absolutely be before the salary guarantees. Thoughtful. I appreciate it.