Thurman#1

This is the general feeling I've gotten. Uninformed feeling, I should say. But that's the way it looks to me to be trending.

No sleep for the wicked! Thank you for all the effort here.

Too much money in their cap situation, yes. Spotty play, not really. If the play had been all that spotty, he wouldn't have gotten that money. The reason he did is because he's very very good. The Bills have said it again, over and over. They wanted him back. They couldn't afford it in the current cap situation. And yeah, best to him in the future. Agree to disagree. He's worth it. But teams in cap strictures don't get to sign all the guys they think are worth signing.

They've got an absolutely crappy DL. That was what they should have worked on. He can't get much done without a solid DL in front of him. Nor can any other LBs. Again, with good DTs in front of him, Ray Lewis was all-world, and with crappy ones for a year or two in the middle of his career he was OK. Yup. Honest to God, it's a sad bunch. They need a scapegoat to howl at more than oxycodone addicts need their fixes.

There'll be at least three protests. This one's like month-old sushi, IMO.

Cover1. Most particularly Greg Tompsett and Erik Turner. Ant is good too. They put out an absolute ton of content. I can't listen to anywhere near all of it, I'd overdose. But the best of their stuff is very very good indeed. They do a lot of tape review, so some of it you have to watch as well as listen. But not all, and their tape stuff is often among their very best.

You know, if this post were written about a team that had gone 5-12 or maybe 6-11 last year it would make sense. But it was not, and so it does not make sense. Not at all. You know what's "killing this team"? Nothing. "They are OK," you say? That's absolute fruit cake nuts. They're excellent. Haven't gotten over the hump yet, but they have a chance every year and that absolutely includes this year. They are far far better than "OK". This team is not dying. They're terrific, one of the best in the league. This team has not consistently whiffed in the draft, it simply has not. They've drafted well. Not spectacularly, but well. Made some mistakes. Gotten some great values. All across the When you look at the major difference makers in the draft, most of them come among the blue chippers, first ten to fifteen guys or so. We aren't there any more. Get used to it!!! It's a good thing.

It's the beginning of his SECOND year. Not his third, his second. Not the end. The beginning. The play almost certainly is to develop him. It would be better if he'd developed quickly. But he is a bit slow. And no we didn't know for sure in the draft how long he'd take. But we did draft a guy with virtually no experience in our system, so yeah, it was always more likely he'd take more time. Doesn't mean he won't become terrific. He might. Or might not. But he might.

Sure, watch comment, predict and complain. And sometimes go wildly overboard. Which is not unreasonable to point out.

729 offensive snaps in four years with three teams. Zero of them with Philly, two with Tampa and the rest with Cincy in 2019 to 2021. I don't know the guy at all, but this doesn't instill confidence

Smooth? Rashad. Smooth isn't necessary. Steve Smith sure wasn't smooth, just for one among very many. But it doesn't hurt a single bit.

Not a single in-season rep. This is way way way way too early to be making statements like this. Certainly seems possible. But plenty of guys with potential don't achieve it.

He does a lot to make them look great. And he also does a lot to make them look bad. The way he holds the ball would make any OL look bad and would end up with more pressures on any OL. Our OL has not been really good for a long time. They also haven't been as bad as many on here want to believe. Look again at Tompsett's tweet inside the very post you replied to. Tompsett knows his stuff. And this is some interesting news and IMO makes it a bit more likely Isabella ends up here.

A few of those in the top 51 might not make the roster. If so, they would likely be replaced by cheaper guys. The fewer of those chances to clear cap space are used this year, the better for the team's long-term cap viability.

The overall deal was horrible. But he's very affordable for any team trading for him. All but about $10M was signing bonus. Don't expect to see him here, though

Siran Neal, Wyatt Teller and Matt Milano. Three 5th rounders from this regime.

Take a listen. That's really not what Marino says this points to.

Joe Marino did a play-by-play breakdown of the pressure on Josh and found that a lot of it was on Josh himself. Backing up into rushers who had been directed too deep around him without any pressure forcing that backup. Leaving clean pockets. And so on. It's in the first ten minutes. Here's an example of one play that was not Allen's fault according to Joe: "#4 you had a completion to Stefon Diggs on a first and ten on a comeback route. Josh faced a little pressure in his face because DeMarvin Leal, the Pittsburgh Steelers defensive tackle executed a good bull rush on O'Cyrus Torrence who got worked back into Allen and it affected him just a little bit but it was still a good throw and completion to Stefon Diggs. I would say the reason for the pressure was O'Cyrus Torrence. His hands were wide and late and so DeMarvin Leal was able to get into his chest and work him back and so the pressure on that play, the responsibility for that is O'Cyrus Torrence." Interestingly, he blamed one play on Kincaid, saying he completely missed a chip he was supposed to make, which left Dawkins in an impossible position. His conclusion was there were 12 dropbacks, and he was pressured on six of them, including the sack. He blamed Allen's pocket management for three of them. "Two times, I "guess" it was Dion Dawkins but I thought that was more of a result of Josh Allen and his pocket management. So big asterisk, big air quotes around Dion Dawkins for two of them." Blamed Brown for one, one on Torrence and one on Dalton Kincaid. Marino also points out how outstanding the protection was for Barkley and Kyle Allen. Hmmm. 28 dropbacks, 4 pressures.

As usual, and especially with people who say this often, what looks simple and is often loudly called simple is often complex and multi-faceted in real life. Stuff that fits a person's confirmation bias doesn't get the slightest real-world check in the brain, it's just bring out the pitchforks time. This thread is a pretty good example. Joe Marino did a play-by-play breakdown of the pressure on Josh and found that a lot of it was on Josh himself. Backing up into rushers who had been directed too deep around him without any pressure forcing that backup. Leaving clean pockets. And so on. It's in the first ten minutes. Here's an example of one play that was not Allen's fault according to Joe: "#4 you had a completion to Stefon Diggs on a first and ten on a comeback route. Josh faced a little pressure in his face because DeMarvin Leal, the Pittsburgh Steelers defensive tackle executed a good bull rush on O'Cyrus Torrence who got worked back into Allen and it affected him just a little bit but it was still a good throw and completion to Stefon Diggs. I would say the reason for the pressure was O'Cyrus Torrence. His hands were wide and late and so DeMarvin Leal was able to get into his chest and work him back and so the pressure on that play, the responsibility for that is O'Cyrus Torrence." Interestingly, he blamed one play on Kincaid, saying he completely missed a chip he was supposed to make, which left Dawkins in an impossible position. His conclusion was there were 12 dropbacks, and he was pressured on six of them, including the sack. He blamed Allen's pocket management for three of them. "Two times, I "guess" it was Dion Dawkins but I thought that was more of a result of Josh Allen and his pocket management. So big asterisk, big air quotes around Dion Dawkins for two of them." Blamed Brown for one, one on Torrence and one on Dalton Kincaid. Marino also points out how terrific the protection was for Barkley and Kyle Allen. Hmmm.

No, it did not happen that way. I'm not arguing the time they gave him the extension. But it was a brilliant move by the Bills and worked that way right from minute one and more so as each game passed, particularly when they quickly moved him to LT making him radically undervalued. And no he didn't make the Pro Bowl in 2005, his first year to play on the line in his pro career (and college besides). He did have hiccups early but by the middle of the year he was one of the best. He didn't make the Pro Bowl because fans didn't know who he was yet. He was playing excellently and you didn't find anyone saying he wasn't. It was absolutely reported by an anonymous source that Peters was asking for $13M and Peters never disagreed. But that was when the Bills were said to be offering around $7M, and as each side made moves they bracketed in on $10M. And yeah, you're damn right Brandon thought he was a smart negotiator and contract giver after that second contract. In his first year on the line he was already extremely good. The next year he went to the Pro Bowl and in his third and fourth years on the line he was All-Pro ... all under Brandon's RT contract. If he'd had a Snidely Whiplash moustache, Brandon would have been twirling it. It looked team-friendly early and extremely team-friendly right from the moment that they switched him to LT. The evidence they didn't give him $10M is that it took the Eagles about two hours to work out the contract after the trade. Literally. The Eagles signed him al. And that the numbers that came out during negotiations were bracketed right in on $10M. $10M was the widespread guess all through the negotiations and was what he signed ffor in Philly. No, it can't be proved. Yes, it was by far the most likely way it went down and was reported as such at the time. There is a fair amount of evidence that the Bills wanted him back. None that they were willing to give him the $10M he wanted, especially that year. It was April when he was traded. If they were willing to give him that the same year the Eagles did why didn't they? Why didn't they ever come out and say, "That Eagles contract, we'd offered him that"?

If he is. It's questionable. Well, I'd disagree with that. He's looked plenty good at times. Certainly not very good at other times. Before the injury he had really started to improve. And by many reports he's had a good camp overall. Again, haven't seen the game as I figure out how to replace International Game Pass, but I'm certainly willing to believe it was bad.

Haven't even seen the game yet. But one bad preseason game against Watt? Not an important indicator. Again, I haven't seen it yet, but no, not time to hit the panic button. But now they need to be consistently watching. Cause for concern, yes.

Scott, a gentle hint: ... your own guesses are not inevitable. They are guesses. The fact that you use the word "inevitably" about a pure guess points to a serious flaw in your understanding about your ability, or rather inability, to know the future. You're guessing. That outcome you're calling inevitable is instead, in reality, possible. It's one of many possible outcomes. My guess is that it's the fourth most likely outcome, after he comes out by injury and he plays all year without injury, and they bring in an experienced journeyman. But that is a guess of mine. The difference being I am not silly enough to call my guess inevitable. Don't bother thanking me. Glad to do it.

No, this just didn't happen that way. The reason they gave him an extension a year early is that he was playing RT as one of the absolute best in the league. It was a damn good deal for the Bills and for Peters ... if he was playing RT. They switched him to LT. At LT it was a huge bargain for the Bills and Peters very rightfully felt undervalued very early in his contract. Now he was playing LT at an elite level, making him instantly underpaid. Most guys at least get a couple years really liking their deals because they're making good money for their position. Peters got much less. And he didn't say he wanted $8 - $10M. It got in the papers at the time (almost certainly leaked by the Bills) that he asked for $13M. But then as the Bills moved up from their offers, Parker brought his offer down. The offers were bracketed towards $10M. It's where he was always going. He was worth every penny of it and the Bills should have given it to him. There's zero evidence that they were going to give him the $10M he wanted. The Bills have said they wanted to sign him later but have never said they were going to give him that $10M. They most likely never wanted to. I've always figured that Russ Brandon was so proud of the move he made signing him to such an undervalued contract that he thought he was a master of contract hardball, a business genius. And that he'd teach these players who was in control. The Bills were the ones who pulled the stunt, giving him an RT contract and then expecting him to be happy on it as an elite LT.

Yeah, most likely. Sigh.