Thurman#1

Just wanting to win one now is your choice. Again, I totally disagree. Give me an exciting 15 years where we have a great chance. If that happens, we likely win one, maybe two or three or more. I totally disagree, but if that's your opinion, fine. But yeah, personal finances are for the long-term. Thing is, so is football when you've a got a QB as young and terrific as Josh Allen. And again, Beane does not agree with you.

Fair enough. But that argument works both ways. Next year isn't guaranteed either. Say they mortgage the future by bringing in Hopkins, and then Allen is injured and out for the year. Now they have no chance for probably four or five years. You're right, that 10 - 15 years isn't promised. But that's the way to bet. If they handle the money smartly, and keep us in contention for as many years as possible. Very questionable that bringing in Hopkins gives us the best chance. That's a guess. And IMO not a very good one.

Your salary can keep going up and there are ways to structure your personal loans so that they ... Same deal. Those things aren't get out of jail free cards. They just mean borrowing more from future years. And no, there aren't ways to structure contracts to limit their impact, in terms of playing games with the cap. There are ways to structure contracts to limit their impact in specific years. I mean, sure, you're right, you can structure a contract to limit impact. You could make it totally non-guaranteed, give zero signing bonus and vet min all four years. Very very limited cap impact. But D-Hop doesn't sign that contract. You've got to write a contract the player will sign. They want bonuses and guaranteed money and big money. The fact that the cap is going up is already cooked into the financial decisions Beane's already made. They reached the point where they Go for it ... if it makes sense. Otherwise, pass. I don't think there's a zero chance this happens. But the current situation makes it pretty damn unlikely.

You said nonsense, and then didn't say a single word that put any logical pressure on what I said. Not a single word. So your response wasn't nonsense. But it was irrelevant to what I said. Green Bay had a terrific run during that period. Didn't win another one, but came close numerous times and it was a great time to be a Packer fan. You can pretend that bringing in D-Hop would guarantee a title this year. It would only be pretending. It would raise the chances this year but drop them for years after. This absolutely is going to be our decade to decade and a half as long as we have Allen and don't put ourselves in cap jail at some points and throw away a few of those years.

In terms of whether we could use D-Hop and whether he would improve us, I totally agree with you. He'd cause opponents problems. He's a great player.

I personally think you're crazy. But it's a legitimate view. I'm sure you don't care if I don't share that view. Why would you? Thing is, it's a view that is also not shared by Beane and Co. They've said multiple times that their goal is to be competitive every year.

Unfortunately, it really is mortgaging the future. Precisely that. Unless D-Hop somehow comes here on the cheap. That would be fantastic but I don't see that happening, unfortunately. We're only $1.6M under the cap right now. Everybody knows this. What many don't know is that we're already $35M OVER the cap for 2024. And yeah, it would be great to draft better. Any team can say that regardless of their cap status. We already draft pretty well. I'm for drafting better, though. But teams drafting late in the round simply don't have the opportunities or likelihood of getting the best results out of their draft. Give D-Hop a big signing bonus and you've kicked money down the road ... and that $35M has gone up, as has the cap figure for each year of the rest of the contract. It's precisely mortgaging the future. You can do it, but there are limits and very very real consequences. Sure, sure. But the salary cap and credit card analogy is really right on target. Excepting interest, of course. But a team paying a signing bonus and the way the amortization works is a near-exact match to how credit cards work. You borrow the money? You have to account for it. Borrow enough money from future years and you'll destroy your freedom to spend in those future years.

Yeah, that's right. Particularly with already paid bonuses, (signing bonuses, roster bonuses and any other kind that they guy already received for future performance) must be taken away from the team's cap. There's no way to pay a guy a bonus for future performance, have it not count against that year's cap, and then when he's cut have it not count against the cap in any year. Can't happen. With the exception of money the team's sue to get back if a guy retires or something and the team feels they've been deceived about the player's commitment and intent to finish up the contract.) Think Vontae Davis requiring at halftime and voluntarily coming to Beane and returning the unused part of his signing bonus voluntarily. But other than that, if you already gave the player the bonus, it MUST be accounted for on the cap in the next year or the next two years depending when it all goes down. However, dead money also includes one other kind of money for guys who are cut rather than traded. If the team guaranteed future years of salary and then cuts rather than trades them, that same team is still on the hook for the guaranteed future salary, even if the guy isn't on the team.

Yeah, yeah, I do realize it. There is always money left on the credit cards too. But the people who think that means it's a great idea to max out those cards because they can don't end up having successful financial lives. There are always more shiny objects out there too. Always.

This is our decade. Decade and a half. Going all in on this year, meaning sacrificing the future, is nuts.

Yeah, this. Unless he gives a hometown discount regardless of this not being his hometown. I mean you always can. But there are consequences that make it a bad idea in the current situation.

That's not fair. It's pretty nuts. It's fairer than it looks, as he's trying to correct for strong rosters. But when you look at McDermott's first three years here, his teams absolutely outworn their roster strengths. He's a lot better than that.

Yeah, you will continue to be on that end. It fits your narrative. You're trying to use the fact that he looks fat and out of shape now and pretend that that shows that he's getting fatter and worse every year. Makes absolutely zero sense. But again, don't let sense hold you back. And don't let the fact that you're about alone way way way out on the fringes bother you either. Does the picture show there's still something there to keep an eye on? Yeah. Does it show what you think it does? Um, no.

Yeah, you feel that he's getting fatter year by year, despite the fact that nobody else has him making linear progression in any direction. Fits your narrative, so you love it. It doesn't fit reality very well, but hey, if something has to go, let it be the facts. What has really happened with him is he's gone up and down. But worse each year is pretty much you alone. Relatively bad last year? Probably fair enough, particularly at the beginning of the year. In reality, his weight has gone up and down, and his play has been mostly up but has regressed a couple of times significantly. Hasn't been a linear progression in either direction. But hey, if it works for you, don't let sense stand in the way. Kidding yourself that you know the future, I mean, it makes you look silly, but if you feel comfortable in that role, go for it. Oh, and are Josh and Knox 300+ pounders? OLs? Sorry, man, that's just a dumb comparison. True enough that not all linemen have weight problems, but an awful lot do, partially due to the way they have to force themselves to eat to stay at a weight high enough to not get pushed out of the way. And plenty of those guys who do have concerns have long and very productive careers. Some don't. Some eat themselves out of the league in Fridge-like fashion. That's why it's something to watch. Plenty do just fine. But comparing linemen to skill position guys who weigh like 70 to 80 pounds less shows more about you not quite getting this than it does about the relationship linemen have with body weight. And yeah, not great. Fair enough. Nobody's arguing that he's great, certainly not me. Top ten or twelve generally, sometimes a bit better and for a couple of periods significantly worse for a relatively short but real and concerning time. But generally, top ten or twelve. Which means most of the league would love to have him.

It's May.

Ah, fair enough on Stanley and the Eagles guy, thank you. I'd give him another big payday. He is pretty consistently our best, making the left side look good even when they haven't really been. But with age, you can't give him the same contract a 26 year old would get, certainly. And fair enough to address fitness and/or weight concerns in the next iteration. Won't be easy to replace him without using a 1st round pick or a major FA contract.

This isn't a really difficult question to answer. It'll be a concern when it's a concern. That's the answer. Realistic people have to learn to live with uncertainty. There is no way to know. Perhaps soon. Perhaps never. He's been good his whole career, very good, really. With a few down periods, (Bill is right to cite inconsistency) but mostly very good. When that's no longer so, it will be a concern. We have zero evidence that's now. Nor do you have evidence that it's getting worse. And there's certainly no evidence he's getting better about it either. He's fairly often been bit sloppy, always, but especially in the offseason. Which is how many OLs are. He'll either continue handling it as he has while being good, or he'll get better at it or he'll get worse. If he gets a little worse, it won't be much of a concern. If he gets significantly worse, it will. When and if that happens, it will be a concern. Until then, it's something to watch. Doubtless the Bills have talked to him through the years, and they're doubtless continuing. So far it's worked. That's no guarantee, but there's no guarantee against regression for any player on any team. Hah! 😂 He's big but he's listed at 320, and I don't see him at 360, even in his worst photo.

Yeah, some people will overlook it. And plenty more never heard about the crime. And yeah, you can shake a label. Perhaps not completely. But you can. Ray Lewis is a damn good example. It's a shame, what happened. But bad stuff happens to plenty of people. Araiza is hardly alone. He'll get past it, if he's tough, which seems to be the case. Good luck to him. I wish him a good career and a good life.

It's really not that he's overrated. It's that there's a group of Bills fans who underrate him. They want him to be a top five guy, and he's not. So they constantly carp about him. Constantly. He's been a guy who they have never had to worry about. He has played through injuries and had some real downturns but has always been solid even at his worst. The line has been a concern. But Dion has never been a worry. He's not overpaid. Not underpaid either. If you want a guy who's top ten or twelve, after the rookie contract you have to pay him a lot higher than the 12th best salary. It's just how it works. He's at a high-value position, and that's just what you have to do. He's now 12th highest at AAV, and will fall a bit over the next couple of years. Then if we still want to keep him, which is likely but never sure, they'll have to give him an awful lot of money. It's the way it works. He's been a good deal for the Bills, all the way. Not a bargain but a good deal. As for the picture, it's a mild concern. It's not nothing. But he's always been a guy who looked too big. And people want to ignore this, but there are good pictures and bad pictures. Some make you look big and some make you look small, body position, lighting, the way the clothing falls across the body. He legitimately does look a bit too big. Hard to be sure, and not a major concern right now at all. But it's something to watch.

It ain't the kids. This has been jargon from psychology and business for decades now. The boss tells you to do it? That's external motivation. You yourself want to do it? That's internal motivation. Internal motivation gets better success rates. That's why the bosses are going to try to get internally motivated people and provide a situation where the employees get internally motivated. Am I mansplaining, probably to another man? Sorry.

In May? Um, no, they can't. Check out the schedule. They don't have a single game till ... well, not May. When people ask them questions, they're expected to answer. Jeez.

First, "heavily prioritize" is a real exaggeration. It's ridiculous. They do take it seriously, they do spend resources on it at a higher than average rate, though. So do virtually all of the best teams in the league. Do you wonder why that is? You shouldn't. It's pretty obvious. Roughly a sixth of all plays are STs plays, and every year we see games won and lost by plays made by special teams around the league. KC's STs DVOA was 3rd in the league last year. The Rams the year before was 4th. Buffalo will adapt to rule changes going forward. It's something they're good at. Up through this last year special teams has made a real, statistically quantifiable difference in team performance. If they continue to de-emphasize them with new rules, teams will dial down the resources used there. We'll see what happens this year. At that point, though, as usual, teams that maintain an emphasis there will have an advantage. Teams could, for example, work hard on punt returns and as other teams de-emphasize it, better teams could return a few more and get their better-prepared units to maybe get a few longer runbacks that could make differences in games. It'll depend how much of an advantage doing that will provide. You can bet the Bills - all the good teams, really - will focus in on the analytics and see how much game impact STs lose with this rule, and how much they maintain.

Because he played only one style in college certainly does not show that he can't play another in addition. And how he played late in the year sure seemed to me to show precisely that he was beginning to pick up playing zone, and pretty damn well. Do you think it's going to change this year? My bet is there's maybe a 10% chance they'll play a lot of man-to-man, never mind press man. Maybe less than that. Likely they'll play some, enough to be unpredictable, perhaps more than last year, but IMO they're not switching the whole coverage scheme this year. McDermott comes out of the Jim Johnson system and even that far back it was built around mostly zone coverage. We didn't draft a press man CB. We drafted a CB who had not played much of anything but man in college but was a guy they felt could transition to playing plenty of zone as well. So far it seems to have worked out.

I saw your post and thought it sounded difficult but not impossible. Thought I'd check it out His statistical dominance was truly insane. Look at 1963. Brown had 1863 yards, his best year. The second-best RB that year was Jim Taylor with the Pack. 1,018 yards. Number two in the league in a year when Brown had 1,863. Taylor had fewer carries, 248 to Brown's 291, but he was insane. That year Brown averaged 133.1 Yards per Game on the ground. In the same year, the league average for production on the ground was 126.4. That's the average for teams, not players. Brown totalled more yards on the ground than the league average for teams that year. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/rushing.htm

Nah. Jim Brown was Jim Brown with training methods from the '50s. Today he would be a ton better than he was back then. He might not have been quite as dominant, but still extremely.