Thurman#1

Let's not kid ourselves that we know for sure how this will turn out. It could indeed work out that way. Or it could end up being maybe 20% less returns, and a 20% increase in yards per return becauses teams haven't stocked the kickoff defenses well, thinking they wouldn't need them. We just don't know yet.

Huh. By the end of this season? Hmm. Interesting. I'm going two-way tie at a bit bad between Lamar and Rodgers, with none looking very bad. I can tell I'm getting old and grumpy, as my first reaction was "all of them!!"

Bad man as owner, yeah, fair enough. Incompetent football man who thought he was a good football man really was one of their big problems. He consistently interfered over the years, and did a crap job bringing in GMs and heads of football operations, favoring sycophants over excellence. I lived in Arlington and Rosslyn for a while during the Jack Kent Cooke era. That was an impressive machine, and I got to see the Bills mill around outside the stadium after games a couple of times as well. Couldn't believe Shane Conlan's shoulders, or how small Tasker was compared to the rest of them.

The Browns. Gotcha! Agreed.

The right move would have been keeping Edmunds also, and they are very very aware of that. But there just wasn't money for it. Sometimes you have to let a guy go who you would much rather keep. They've made it very, very clear that this was one of those cases. They'd obviously have improved the team by bringing Edmunds back, same as they would by bringing in Hopkins. But good money management and a determination to stay competitive each year means they had to sacrifice. We have yet to see how well this will work out. Right now, MLB looks like it might be an area where they have to cover up a weakness. Hopefully not, but right now that's probably the best guess. I could certainly be wrong, and I hope that's the way it works out. But losing Edmunds is likely to hurt us. Yup. He seems like the most likely one. And of course the OC, whoever it is. Like forever.

Strictly speaking, this isn't in the contract. It's in the massive web of surrounding documents, probably the CBA though I don't know for sure. Yes, he knew it was in the collective bargaining agreement. And both he, his agent, and the team also knew what was in there about holdouts as well. Holdouts are allowed. You can't hold a guy to some provisions of the CBA and the contract but not all of them. The players have to accept that the teams can cut them anytime. The teams have to accept that the players can hold out under certain conditions. It's all part of the deal. None of it less morally acceptable than the rest of it.

Yeah, those all make sense to me, and it is indeed a tricky situation with a guy (very reasonably) looking for his last big payday.

"The Buffalo Bills are interested in hiring A.J. Dillon." Hiring? IMO that was written by an A.I., the original Buffalo TV Beat article. I wanted the Bills to draft Dillon at the time. Loved him. But not in the 2nd. Don't see it as a realistic possibility for him to come here, though I like the guy a lot.

My absolute favorite player when he got here and integrated into the offense. Last year I had to try hard not to root against him. I virtually always root for ex-Bills elsewhere. Can't do it with Beasley. Can't even wish him good luck. I wish I felt differently.

No, plenty of times restructures don't need agent or player input of any kind. It's already in the contract. And that's what happened this year in Martin's case. The Cowboys just pulled the trigger on that part of his contract. He didn't have any choice or input this year. The Cowboys just "executed clauses in two of their biggest contracts." https://cowboyswire.usatoday.com/lists/cowboys-prescott-martin-restructure-2023/ Doing that, executing that clause, helps the team's cap situation, but it also gives Martin a bit more leverage, as the money is already in his bank account now. He does get paid plenty for his output by my standards and most standards. Not by NFL elite guard standards, though. The Boys have to live with all of the consequences of their decisions. Having said that, Martin also has to live with all the consequences of his. He has every right to complain and to hold out if that's what he wants. Makes sense to me to rattle your saber in this kind of situation.

Absent an Allen injury, both are pretty unlikely. Probably each is below 20%. I'd pick missing the playoffs as more unlikely, though not by a lot. Injuries happen, though. With that possibility included, missing the playoffs is more likely, according to both me and Vegas.

Salaries are set by market pressure in pretty much every profession; it's how capitalism works. IMO we don't have any idea how this will work out for Saquon. If he actually does hold out through the season then I'd agree with you that it would be a bad idea for him. Most likely he'll join 'em in camp after a few days or a week or two and he'll perform as well as ever while pressuring the Giants. Oh, I'm so sorry. I missed the part where you said, "Since three years ago he has ..." Except you didn't say that, or imply it. You're just desperately trying to move the goalposts now that I point out the obvious, that the fact that he put a first and more into Diggs is inconvenient for your poor argument. As for the position declining, doesn't look like it to me. They look better than last year. We'll see. But particularly with Kincaid likely playing a bunch of receiver, and also being a 1st rounder, your assertion is at best extremely questionable.

He's not, really. That was a contract extension, not a contract. When he signed it (Sept. '21), it meant that he was then signed for a total of four years for a total of $19.6M. The extension was advertised as for three years for $18.6M, but as with most extensions, the money was actually to be paid over four years, not three. He got the signing bonus in '21 while the new years were '22 to '24. That also looks to have been too much, in hindsight. Only if you ignore the fact that he actually got Diggs by using a first rounder and a bit more in trade.

Both are OK under this system. One's not better than the other. Players know they can be cut. And teams know players can hold out.

So, you're "pretty sure" he would have signed for an extra year for a couple of mill ... because he would want that extra year? Yeah, that makes no sense. An extra year for a lot of money? Maybe. An extra year for very little more? In what way is that better for any player? It's not. Sure, the Bills could have built in incentives. That's basically a form of offering more money, which the Bills would not have wanted to do. We know that since they did not want to give him even as much as the Titans did, much less more.

It wouldn't "be considered" a tear down. But yeah, it very likely would have forced them to start making decisions that they didn't want to make that would have seriously impacted. Again, they're already $25 to $41M over the cap next year. Adding very significantly to that Agreed that risk v. reward is a consideration, but so is price for this guy vs. guys we'd have to give up down the road instead. This close to the weeds, it's likely the bigger consideration. The Davis move has absolutely been addressed here, even in this thread. Davis may already not be here, depending on how he does and how much he gets in the next contract. We might not be able to afford him even without the extra expense of Hopkins. Hopkins is very likely going to be better this year, that's not a sure thing but likely. But he's already on the way downhill, and Davis is still heading up. Davis will likely either end up here or end up getting us another nice high comp pick, helping us in future years when Hopkins will likely be headed quickly towards a nice announcing gig or a podcast somewhere. Yup. While not over, it's at least running out of gas. That's been the overwhelming likelihood for a long time now, but many just didn't see it, or at least want to see it.

Right, it's not debatable, because it's correct. Good job with the straw man, there, though. But again, having winning the Super Bowl being your goal and deciding that your method for winning the Super Bowl is being competitive every year is simply NOT in opposition. That is a fact, not an opinion. Allen saying he wants to win a Super Bowl does NOT mean he has a problem with doing it Beane's way.

Seriously? That's just ridiculous. It's evidence that you are indeed running here on confirmation bias. You are using the fact that you DON'T know his grades as evidence that he's not really smart. On the face of it, that is next-level dumb. Oh, and yes he graduated, with a degree in "Business Finance." He also earned Academic All-Conference at William and Mary in '96 and '97. Being an ex-football player - whether or not you have the skill to get to the next level - doesn't mean you're not absolutely brilliant. Look at Whizzer White, Duvernay-Tardif, Alan Page, Eisenhower, Jeffrey Immelt, Sam Palmisano, Brian Moynihan. There was a guy from Buffalo, an OL who looked good in the NFL for a year or two who quit the NFL to become a math prof. Who was he? Urschel, that's it. Buzz Aldrin. Pat Haden. The list goes on and on and on. Belichick was also an "ex-college football player who didn't have the skill to get to the next level." McVay too. How come that counts against McDermott for you but not against Belichick or McVay? And does Belichick speak like a rocket scientist? Remind me. EDIT: The podcast does sound interesting. I'll try to take a look. Thanks for bringing it up.

Winning the Super Bowl is NOT in opposition to being competitive every year. It's just not. The more shots at the brass ring you have the better. Did Allen say something along the lines of wanting to win this year? Or did he say something along the lines of wanting to win this year even if it hurts our odds in future years? Wanting to win this year is something they all have in common.

I think you're right that it could be a really good signing for them. My guess is that he doesn't put them over the top, though. We'll see. Um, where did I, or Beane or McDermott, say different? We did not. The quotation I referenced is about how to best accomplish that. And players have, as they should, much more of a one year at a time focus that a GM should have. That's as it should be.

Makes sense to me, but I think Hopkins was always likely to settle for very good rather than terrific facilities and $15M or so extra to find private care that would fill the gap,

We're NOT in a "win-now Super Bowl window." This is simply not a team that believes in sacrificing the future for the present. And thank Goodness for that. We're in a Super Bowl window which has a good chance of lasting for many years .... if they don't go nut with their spending. They are already $25M (OvertheCap.com) to $41M(Spotrac) OVER the cap for next year. Spending a lot of money is not, and should not be, a priority. Folks are right that Hopkins is likely to be a very good player even if not what he used to be. But paying the money he got would have hurt us down the road. Significantly. And the point is NOT what is the move that gets us to the next level. They've made it clear - right from the press conferences upon their being hired, but also every time when they've been asked since - that they want to be competitive every year. That's their goal. Whether it's yours or not.

Neither sad, nor true. They did sign a DE. His contract was about half of what Floyd got. That's why they signed him instead of DHop. What surprise, that DHop signed for a lot, somewhere else, for a team that's not especially contending for a Super Bowl. I myself am deeply shocked by what most knew would happen actually happening, for the obvious financial reasons.

Statistics like this for one year have a very large element of randomness. Teams which repeat something like this year after year may legitimately have some kind of problem, perhaps a psychological inability of some kind. The fact that in 2021 the Bills were #1 in the NFL in Red Zone scoring percentage tells you that the Bills are not a team with this kind of problem. They are a team that had a bad year ... worse late, and it happened in a year when their all-world QB hurt his throwing arm and couldn't throw well short, which is the kind of throw you have to make in the red zone.

Interesting stuff, man, thank you. (This is not sarcasm.) Hadn't thought of things like insurance policies. I doubt most players would want the team giving them stuff like this, as it's the team spending the player's money for them. And it sounds like the team is paying for travel, board and lodging for offseason workout programs and such. Which seems fairly obvious, but I hadn't thought of it at all. Makes total sense, particularly for players way down the roster. That would be necessary for a lot of them to even come.