Thurman#1

I'm not thrilled with that article, but it's not nearly as unreasonable as you make it out to be. Gleason didn't say anything about "holding them to their word," which would imply a lot of power to himself. What he said was that, "By signing him, Beane would run the risk of veering from his own message." Which is a lot more reasonable than how you paraphrased it. Gleason also mentioned possible doubts that Maclin would be a big splash. And while cap was obviously a major factor in this decision, that doesn't mean it was the only one. Reid waited to make this move until they'd seen him in six practices over the past couple of weeks, according to a Chiefs article. http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2017/6/2/15732810/surprise-chiefs-cut-jeremy-maclin-save-10-million-against-the-cap Might they not have been watching him to see if he'd lost a step? Might they not have seen something a bit worrisome? They're going to have $7.2 mill in dead cap money over the next couple of years from cutting him. This was not so easy a decision as you're making it sound. And yeah the Chiefs thought the world of him as a teammate and competitor. Not so much as a performer, though, not last year. He was in 12 games and had two TDs and 536 yards, along with his lowest catch percentage since 2012 and his lowest Y/R. There were a lot of questions in play here for KC. Cap was not the only concern. The Chiefs could have cut somebody else, but they didn't. I often don't agree with Bucky, and he didn't convince me here, especially not knowing how much it will cost to sign Maclin. But his article wasn't as bad as you're saying.

Oh, please. Comparing Rivers and Cutler is like comparing Ruth's Chris prime rib and a Quarter Pounder. San Diego hasn't won a Lombardi because football is a team game and even an elite QB needs to be surrounded by a solid team to go far in the playoffs. But they made a conference championship during Rivers' time there. They've won four playoff games from a very quick count and made the playoffs five or six times, mostly in Rivers' early years when they had a decent but not great GM.

Exactly. And I don't know why you would leave out those good good early years. Though even with them, it hasn't been a great run overall. We aren't rebuilding. If we were we wouldn't have kept Tyrod, Kyle Williams, Shady and so on. But reloading takes time too if your roster is weak enough, and right now ours does not look strong overall. Polian did pretty well with the salary cap, actually. And John Butler very much did not. They had to bring in Whitey to clean up Butler's cap mess. Unfortunately, cleaning up the cap mess was one of the few things he did well. Yeah, Mr. Wilson gets the responsibility for all the bad years, but also the credit for the good ones during the Kelly years and the AFL years.

Doesn't get a nibble on Buffalo's side. If he were younger, you don't hesitate for an instant, but he's 36. We would have to build a team around him for the next two or three years, without 3 firsts. Rivers might be worth that, but Buffalo can't give those up. If we already had a terrific roster, maybe. But we don't. It simply isn't going to happen. The likelihood of getting Rivers is pretty much the same as the likelihood of getting Aaron Rodgers. People don't want to accept that, but it's true. You might be assuming too much there. He might go elsewhere. But yeah, not to Buffalo with the state of the roster we've got right now, and especially not if we gave a lot of our chances to improve that roster in the trade.

Yeah, well it was you who called them talented. In the headline to this thread. As I read, I see you're a troll. Won't respond again. But yeah, it's unlikely Tyrod will ever be a franchise guy. But what could the new regime have done this year to get a QB? Romo wasn't going to come here for his last year or two. What other options were there? Trubisky was long gone. If they don't get someone next year, we'll have cause for starting to complain.

Calling this roster talented, frankly is a stretch. As for QB, we picked up an extra pick in the first next year. What options did we miss out on?

Circular argument. We don't know which games he was very healthy in. You're assuming that if he had great stats he was healthy and if he didn't have great stats he wasn't healthy. That's an unfair assumption. But if you make that assumption, it's not a real surprise to find that - with that assumption in place - that when healthy he produced extremely high numbers. Of course he did. You're only counting the games he had extremely high production as healthy. Circular argument and an unfair assumption about when he was and wasn't healthy.

Rivers isn't going to be available. He just isn't. You know what part of the team kept them out of the playoffs? The part that was on the field. And that absolutely included the passing offense, which was substandard. Only the run offense was playoff-ready. Which is to say that the whole team simply wasn't good enough.

New England doesn't overpay. That may be their first commandment. Making Gillislee the 26th highest paid RB by average salary, just behind Adrian Peterson at 24th and Todd Gurley at 25th when Gillislee had the highest YPA in the league last year ... pretty close to the opposite of overpaying. It's arguable with Gilmore but looking at how the Pats have succeeded so consistently recently by bringing in some high-priced guys at CB ... Talib, Revis, etc., this unfortunately is likely to be yet another smart move by the Evil Empire. You're talking about wins this year, correct? I see some wins too, but probably less than most on these boards do. My guess is 5 to 6 wins with an upside of maybe eight. I probably mean something different by "competitive," too. Don't care about just making the playoffs, never really have since the Super Bowl years. Making the playoffs as a fodder team has never seemed like any real achievement to me.

Sure, they could've kept those two, but it would've been by structuring contracts so that they would have had minimal impact this year and therefore more impact down the road, putting us yet again in bad cap shape. They've pretty obviously - and thank goodness - stopped trying to go into hock to be able to keep or bring in an extra guy or two in the short term. They didn't do any re-structures for salary cap purposes. They want to get in good cap shape, and the year to do it is this one ... we're unlikely to be a competitive team and it's the first year of the new era and with this roster fans won't be expecting much. Most likely they simply want to put this team in better cap situations and that required some surgery without anesthetic losing guys like Gilmore, Woods and Zach Brown that we'd rather have kept in better circumstances. Oh, and Gillislee. We have never been over the cap. Because we cut the people we needed to cut to stay under. And it was seriously painful sometimes. If you didn't see the cap purge we had to deal with at the end of John Butler's term as GM, you ought to look it up. It was a bloodbath. Has there ever been a team that was actually over the cap after the deadline? So, no, not us either, but we've absolutely cut people with cap being by far the main reason and this year it looks to have been a major factor again.

That's a fair opinion, probably. But there's been a lot more pressure on Flacco in that offense than there has been on Tyrod in this one. The Ravens run game the past couple of years has sucked. Teams game-plan for Flacco, while they game-plan to stop the Bills run game. Tyrod hasn't had much success in hooking up with his TE even though Clay was open a lot. It's an interesting decision. Ought to be fun to watch it play out. Yup, and it's a new philosophy for the Bills, one I absolutely love. No borrowing from next year's cap because of this year's problems. It doesn't save money this year, but down the road it absolutely will.

Yeah. Probably depends who got raised up to the 51 in his place. Whoever it was was apparently not a minimum salary guy. Or alternatively whoever did the figuring on how much dead money they owe for him may have missed the $4.5 mill roster bonus they gave him in 2015, if I remember correctly. $12.3 mill available now. And the Bills always keep around $6 mill or so available going through the season in case of injuries they might need FAs for. So that'll be around $6 mill they have to use. With our depth problems, that's money we can really use. It'll be interesting to see what they do with it.

I'd guess 5 - 6. Plus or minus one or two. Too early to say, of course, but if we're guessing now ...

Not entirely true. Tyrod to the RBs 89/ 459 ... 19.4% Rodgers to the RBs 104/615 ... 16.9% Ryan 114/530 ... 21.5% Brady 130/ 546 ... 23.8% Roethlis 126/ 590 ... 26.4% Though Brady and Roethlisberger threw a bit larger percentages to RBs than Tyrod, he was almost exactly on a par with Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan. Nobody was that far out in front, really, though Brady threw significantly larger percentages than any of the others. In any case, I expect Shady to have a good year but for them to limit his touches at his age.

You don't have to be told. It's really not how it's done. He says he'll be happy w/200 a game passing if we put up 250 per game running and win. 250 running a game? We're by far the best in the game and we're not even in the same county, much less the same ballpark. Nobody except us manages 150 a game and we put up 164.4, which is terrific. 250 a game running ... Jeez. And even with that terrific running attack, we won seven games. There was plenty of room left over for more productivity from the pass game. And while a great run game does potentially mean fewer pass plays, it also makes it easier for the pass game when they do decide to throw the ball. Fewer passes is a good reason for smaller gross numbers, but it doesn't give any good reason for lesser efficiency.

I'd argue they tell a story of inconsistency and being pretty good. 800 yards a year and 6 plus TDs don't say "very good." Nor does the catch percentage, which was less than Woods', for instance. With yeah, that one terrific streak, but also a lot of not so terrific production. In any case, let's say I agree he's already very good even with his injury history. I don't, but let's say I did. If trading a very good player was the difference between getting and not getting a top ten QB ... I make the trade in an instant. I trade McCoy, Glenn, Sammy, Incognito ... there's not a player on the team I wouldn't trade to make that difference. That argument doesn't entirely hold up. Beckham, for instance, has a much higher catch rate than the other Giants recievers do over the period. It's more him than Eli. And yet Woods has a higher catch rate than Sammy. Defenses plan to attack the pass games of those teams. In Buffalo, it's been "Make him be a quarterback." They plan to stop the run first. Having Tyrod as his QB has likely had some very positive effects as well what you're looking at.

t His per-target production is elite, you say? Beckham: 63% catch rate (higher than his teammates), 9.01 yards per target. 7.66 TDs per target. That's elite. Antonio Brown: 67% catch rate. 8.87 yards per target. 5.30 TDs per target. Julio Jones: 64% catch rate. 9.79 yards per target. 5.15 TDs per target. Sammy: 55% catch rate. 8.91 yards per target. Very fine yards and TDs per target. Ungreat catch rate. They do not. Injuries have looked like a much larger factor. The target numbers are likely effect rather than cause. He might, for example, not have been getting open as much when injured, causing his target numbers to go down.

Look at the story. These injuries aren't just in one season. He's been injured consistently. It's a move that could be good or bad depending on what they got for him and what they turned it into. IMHO, anyway. I agree there's a lot of good arguments against trading him. I just think that if it became the difference between getting and not getting a QB who is a consistent top ten guy, I'd support it in a second. Though I absolutely agree that a healthy Sammy stands a chance of being a very good player.

Agreed, but all context, not just one stat. Fewest passes. Terrific ground game to take pressure off the pass game. Injuries. An unspectacular catch percentage, even compared to a few of his teammates over the years he's been here. And also his terrific nine-game streak. But also the times he just didn't look dangerous. There's a lot of context. Plenty more for Watkins detractors and supporters to add in.

While he didn't miss a lot of games, he spent much of his first two years fighting injuries as well. Here's a story listing some: http://www.espn.com/blog/buffalo-bills/post/_/id/24712/add-broken-foot-to-sammy-watkins-growing-list-of-nfl-injuries I agree that a trade is unlikely. Highly unlikely? Fair enough. And the Bills shouldn't take any low offer. But it's possible someone on another team could have as much faith in his eventual ability to become a very good player as many on this thread seem to.

While I'm no huge Tyrod fan, what you're saying there is a guess. Could be right. But equally, maybe his injuries and other circumstances would not have allowed much improvement. We don't know, though certainly you might be right. Maybe extra wear and tear would have caused his injuries to become worse. We don't know.

Oh, you made a mistake? Fine, don't worry about it. These things happen. As for my saying that he isn't a bust, that that shouldn't be an argument at this point, I stand by it. A #4 pick. Who's gotten 2459 yards (7th best in his draft so far) and 17 TDs, which comes out to 820 yards and 6.66 TDs per year. For, again, a #4 pick? Nope, not a bust. Too early to say that.

That's just it. Playing with an injury. The guy's been unable to stay healthy. Perhaps he'll stay healthy this year. But maybe not. And we'll be in a different offense this year, there's no knowing what'll happen, healthy or not. We just don't know, and that should make the trade possible. Certainly very unlikely. But possible especially if they think he could be turned into the final piece of a tradeup for a franchise QB.

So, noone is arguing that we gave up three picks in that trade? I'm afraid you missed one person who is arguing that. Which would be me. Because it's true. We did in fact give up three picks in that trade. It's what happened. The 2014 #9, the 2015 #19 and the 2015 #115. Given up in trade for the 2014 #4. One trade. Not two or three little mini-transactions. As for the rest of it, I won't address it anymore after this. You keep talking about implications that perhaps someone is making somewhere, but I certainly am not, nor do I care if somebody else is.

That's not reasonable. He earned it before the contract. That's why the Bills gave him a very high offer. But yeah, after the contract injuries and a scheme - Thanks, Rob Ryan!! - that never really fit him and a defense that just wasn't very good ... he didn't perform anywhere near the contract. But he did certainly play extremely well before the contract. Got a link of anyone from the Bills saying anything slightly like this? Or is it just more fan sour grapes? Yeah, he was about the money. So are they all, really, until the second or third multi-million dollar contract when they can start thinking about hometown discounts.