Thurman#1

He does say things like that. Whenever he's asked. Which isn't all that often. but when it happens that's the kind of thing he says. More, it's the kind of thing pretty much every player in the NFL says when asked about their teammate's financial issues. It's about a half a step up from "He give 110%." Quick example from Josh: "I ' love that guy. Talk about a great man, husband, father, human being,' Allen said. 'He's on the top of the list when I'm asked about who those guys are in the locker room. We got a lot of love for him and his family, and. yeah, I would love to love to have him back.' " That's Josh on Mitch Morse here: https://www.buffalobills.com/news/micah-hyde-gabe-davis-mitch-morse-and-more-address-their-future-with-the-buffalo-bills And yes, it's a duh there. He (and virtually all NFL players) compliments guys after they leave the team. But that's less obviously necessary than complimenting the guy when he's still on your team. Josh does it when asked. They all do. You say Josh's words aren't online because he didn't say them online? Do you see how ridiculous that is? When he has "an interview/press conference," as you say, know what happens? It gets video'd. The videos are online. It gets reported. The stories are online. It gets covered by podcasts and internet savants, and their reports go online. they get reported online. This happens consistently, and so often that it's wildly boring that we see these same quotations again and again and again. And again and again. And again. All those things that Josh gets quoted on on the net? He said pretty much all of them at PCs and interviews. Hell, he said the thing you're quoting about Cook at a PC/interview. That somehow got reported on the net, didn't it? The reason you can't find it is because he didn't say it. Again, I'm totally willing to be proven wrong. But without a link (or a page in a newspaper story, or whatever, but proof), it didn't happen. In any case, I hope they do come to terms. It they do, IMO it will be because Cook came significantly off his $15M figure.

Can't say I'm going to do a deep dive here. Not interested enough. But this time of year, predicting the future, I don't find this non-germane or inappropriate. It's a time of year when people are looking for content that might be interesting and useful. This doesn't really pass the interesting test for me personally, but I don't blame them for trying. If they are incomplete, that's another matter. But hard to be complete when you're trying to include rookies who've never seen an NFL field.

Yeah, that really is kinda strange. It must be based on rookies, as they surely didn't deserve that based on last year's performance. Ah, yeah, they're including Bosa. Clearly does include the new guys, Hoecht, Ogunjobi, etc. Particularly later in the year, the rookies should be a major factor as well. Defensible, then. One opinion, not much more than that, but it would certainly be just as defensible to say you think they won't be top ten. But not unreasonable.

Big AHole. CTE. Both of these things can be true.

Nah. Delta Force is selecting from a group of soldiers. We're selecting from a group of football players. It's much the same thing in that each is selecting from a group of people who has had preparation that could potentially prepare them for what is needed from them, but equally doesn't prove that you'll be good at it. There are plenty of men of high character in the group Delta is selecting from. And while all of them had gone through training, except in time of war, most have not killed anyone. And it goes beyond that ... Studies show that a majority of soldiers in every war don't actually shoot their weapons with intent to kill or harm the enemy. Check S.L.A. Marshall's work, (which has been supported in recent research) or for just a quick look, go here: Absolutely nothing wrong with being culture-centric.

Yup. Possible that it came only from Beane, but equally possible that he was delivering a message for someone. Not a big deal, to me anyway, regardless.

The words "collude" and "collusion" are not in the witness statements, not that we've heard. Only the article's writer introduced them, in speculation. I don't think this is the bombshell it at first looked like.

Josh says this sort of thing about everyone. As he should. Example? On Mack Hollins: "'Super sad to see Mack go. I know he was kind of a fan favorite as well as a favorite in the locker room. I'm very happy for him and what he got. Hate that he's a division rival now but it's the game that we play.'" We could very easily see Josh making the same kind of statement about Cook when he goes after next season. Is Devin Singletary as good as Cook? Or is he just a good back? Because this offense was extremely successful with Singletary as our #1 also. And did Josh actually say, "It had to be done," about getting rid of Dorsey? I don't remember that, so I googled it and your post is the #1 thing at google with those elements. I think you might be misremembering. But if I'm wrong, I'd certainly respect it if you could link it. Anytime Josh is asked about a salary dispute about a guy still on the team, he's going to say much the same thing. Not that I have any doubt Josh would like him back. I'm sure he would (along with most of the roster). But he understands salary cap issues.

Where are all these people "wanting him gone"? I suppose there are probably a few, but very few. Most of us don't want him gone, we don't want to overpay for him. And we think that $15M would absolutely be overpaying, and strongly suspect that Cook isn't going to sign for what we want to pay. He'll get more from someone, is my suspicion. No way. Davis and Ty are worth their contracts. Maybe a bit of an uptick at the end. And this isn't a run-first offense. It just isn't. It's maybe a pass-1A and run-1B offense. It's a you don't know what we'll do on any particular play because we can do what we want offense. Makes us unpredictable. And while it's nice to lower this year's cap number, that's not the only year that matters. They all matter. And overpaying is not a good idea, it just isn't.

Not even that constrained. A lot of his passes were just "Get open quickly. Pick the side that looks better to you." He really was fun to watch. He was a legit starter, a quality starter. Just not a top ten. 14 - 24 sort of thing, depending on the players around him, the offense, and whether he was behind or ahead. He was much better playing from ahead. More often closer to 14 than 24.

"It would be right on brand" for him to be injured in a basketball game despite a complete lack of reports of him being injured off the football field, that I can find. And he's "a bit of a space cadet." To quote Sesame Street, "one of these things is not like the others." You didn't back that up well.

Well, yeah, but that doesn't show what you think it does. Yeah, the Pats won 11 that year. And 16 the year before. Five less games under Cassel. Brady did get hurt. But the Pats also played a historically easy schedule that year under Cassel. Our division was up against the easiest slates ever, including our own division, as the Bills and Jets who were awful. So easy that the Fins, who had gone 1-15 the year before won 11 games that year and the next year went back down to 7-9. Yes, just a day or two ago.

Nah. That's silly. Objectivity has nothing to do with it. It's guesswork. And pessimistic guesswork at that. The statisticians and analysts have said that a great QB is worth roughly five games beyond replacement value, much higher than a great player at any other position.

I would say no. 'Bout the same. The fact we have different guesses shows what? Is evidence of what?

I did make two mistakes above, which I owned up to. You haven't successfully pointed out one since then, though. Again, your argument is about money. How the Bills acquired the guy - whether they paid a draft pick for him - doesn't affect how much the Bills paid. They brought on board contracts they wanted. How they got those contracts is immaterial to arguments over money. How much money they had to pay, that's what mattered. "He wouldn't have gotten a salary of $1M in FA," you say? I see, you've talked to his agent, then, and Cooper himself? I'm sure that must have been quite a talk, you should tell us all about it. The fact is that some FAs get paid far less than they deserve in various situations: Feeling they can prove something in the short time with the new team, or the terms of the original contract mean that the player won't get any more total money with a new large contract than a new small one, for two. The key to the Bills accepting Cooper's money situation wasn't that he was traded rather than being acquired in FA. It was how much money they could get him for. Your argument is a financial one, how much money the Bills should spend on certain positions. Again, we brought in Diggs in a trade. And it was a great move. Re-signing him proved to be a bad one. But spending the money on him in the first place was brilliant. You keep wanting to ignore the wildly productive part of the Diggs story while using the bad part as one of your main bricks. It doesn't work that way in fair arguments. He was here for four years, not one. You're trying to finesse inconvenient facts away. You're arguing that those aren't part of your argument about money, because the McBeane contracts are a bit older or the Bills sent a draft pick to the other team, which means we can ignore that financial move and only talk about the stuff that confirms what you want to say. We get it. But it's not a strong argument. I know. But let's not talk about our outstanding continuous offensive success. Let's talk instead about how cheapness is killing our offense and a lack of skill players at WR and RB is ... is, um ... is a clear failure for this brain trust. Offensive success schmoffensive success.

Um, no. Me: "Cooper indeed wasn't a free agent. Which has nothing to do with how much he was paid and which team acquired him. We got him. Cheap. Other teams didn't. We did." You: "Cooper being traded for at his existing salary, which was less than $1M instead of being a free agent signing had EVERYTHING to do with how much he was paid by the Bills." Yeah, as a careful reader will immediately note, that's you missing my point. I said him not being a free agent had nothing to do with how much he was paid. Trade or FA, you acquire a guy with a salary of less than $1M and that's all that matters to your argument, not that we had to trade something away to get him. You misunderstand and argue that the salary he was paid affected ... what, um, the salary he was paid? Yeah, um, DUH!! Redundant and unresponsive much? You were trying to legislate out trades, because they didn't fit your narrative. Not all trades by the way, just the ones you found inconvenient to your argument. We can apparently talk about Diggs, according to you, but not Cooper, because he's not convenient for the thrust of your argument. So then I point out that your argument is about money, not about whether the Bills traded something away to acquire the contract. You skip right past that and pretend ... I guess your argument was that "his existing salary ... had EVERYTHING to do with how much he was paid by the Bills," apparently trying to assume that I didn't know that his salary equalled his salary? Yeah, I was pretty aware of that. I can't imagine anyone not being aware of it. The Bills strategy since they got here has been pretty consistent. Go after WRs you don't have to pay massively for, not the massive splash types. Trades, FA, whatever, don't swing for the fences financially for WRs. And even more so with RBs. Use TEs and RBs to try to fill in the pass game. And again, they have had tremendous offensive success with this approach.

So you argue that we don't have difference makers ... and yet we've been a terrific offense year after year. Being a great offense is the goal of the offense, and we're achieving it. Where's the problem there? We were an excellent offense with Singletary before Cook. There's a lot of different ways to be excellent. I'm with Barley in that I think we do know what the Bills under Beane will do about investing in an RB if the RB (decision maker or not) insists on $15M AAV. That could be wrong, certainly, but it doesn't appear so. We'll see.

Good points, all. That second paragraph is the part that the "pay him $15M AAV" crowd wants to forget. I too think you know Beane's most likely answer.

You'd like to see some evidence that overpays at WR are equivalent? I'd like to see some evidence that they aren't. And there really isn't such a thing, either way, since overpaying is based on opinion. You clearly think WRs are paid too much, so you see overpays everywhere at that position. Your perception isn't something that can be proved. It could maybe be somewhat supported with massive amounts of contract examination. But you'd still be saying that this guy is an overpay in many many cases where someone fair-minded could disagree. "The NFL has changed a bit since [2019]," you say? Exactly correct. "A bit." The NFL changes every year. But a bit of inflation here and there and a re-shuffle in which positions are paid a bit more is NOT some kind of earth-shaking paradigm shift. It's what happens in football all the time. Pretending that 2019 was the stone ages and the Paleolithic era of six years ago shouldn't count is just nonsense. Beas and Brown are much the same type of mid-level contracts the Bills have mostly given receivers, frustrating those who want to see them bring in higher-paid guys. As Shaw pointed out, this appears to be what the Bills want to do. And their offense has been terrific, consistently. Cooper indeed wasn't a free agent. Which has nothing to do with how much he was paid and which team acquired him. We got him. Cheap. Other teams didn't. We did. And you know it. You used Diggs as evidence for your side. He was also acquired by trade. And it was indeed worth every penny to take his salary on board. What, only trades that show what you want them to show count, but the ones that don't fit your narrative somehow don't count? Sorry, I somehow had the idea they'd renegotiated Diggs right after the Vikings trade. Fact is, though, that acquiring his reasonably expensive contract was a terrific move. The renegotiation (also not free agency, shouldn't count if only free agency is involved) in 2022 was a failure. But getting him in here in 2020 and paying that contract was a tremendous success. For a tremendous offense.

Well, if that's the point it's a bit off target. The reason WRs are paid more is that they're more valuable to the team. It's that simple. More, while there are overpays at WR, there are also underpays and values that are right on target. Overpays hurt regardless of position. You claimed that Harty was an overpay. Fair enough. That Harty contract hurt more than the Bears got hurt overpaying for Tremaine Edmunds because Harty is a WR and Edmunds isn't? Nonsense. Each contract will hurt more or less based on a ton of factors, including performance, injuries, team fit, contract specifics and on and on and on. Position isn't particularly one of those factors. The Bills have gotten plenty of good values at WR as well, John Brown, Manny Sanders, Cole Beasley, Mack Hollins, Amari Cooper and on and on. Diggs' 2022 extension was worth every penny. And the success of the Bills offense, and team, speaks for itself on how well these tactics have worked.

Ah, I see. Fair enough. My bad. But again, maybe it's shorthand, but you're consistently referring to guys by their production alone even as you say you're not judging them that way. As Shaw pointed out, (in the two posts of this thread so far), the Bills are looking at how guys will fit our situation and what we want out of this offense. Also, you pointed out, what seven or eight WR overpays above. Without going into the specifics of those or other contracts, over the same four or five years there are plenty of WR underpays and plenty of WRs who were well-valued. You'll fine that at any position, the old bell curve.

You say you're not relying on yards alone. Then when describing Palmer, that's precisely what you do, that and nothing else. "A guy with back to back 400 yard seasons. That's Josh Palmer production." And nothing else. With only 61 and 65 targets, and on 75% and 65% of snaps there's an extremely good argument that they left a lot of his potential unused. That could be wrong or it could be right, nobody knows. But it probably speaks less to the market than it does the Bills (and possibly other teams as well) evaluation of Palmer specifically. You're judging him - based directly on your own post - on past yards alone. Clearly the Bills are not. Again, doesn't mean this contract will look good down the line. That'll have to be seen.

The receiver last year with the 32nd highest productivity (Pickens) got 900 yards in receiving while burning only 103 targets, leaving all the rest of the team's offensive snaps available for other players to be productive in. The RB last year with the 32nd highest productivity (Tyler Allgeier) put up 644 yards, but required 137 attempts to do so, leaving fewer snaps available for others while producing less. I'm not bothering to include pass stats for RBs there, or run yards for WRs. With unlimited time, I'd have done so, but I don't believe that would change the picture all that much. Some, but not all that much. WRs also more directly make life easier for the QB in getting the ball out of his hands on plays when he's back there facing a rush pointed at him. And in the modern NFL, making life easier for your $50M QB is the name of the game. RBs also make life easier for QBs, of course. So does everyone on the team, certainly including the defense. But WRs do it more directly. RBs change the defense's moves formations and reactions and priorities, and that's valuable, but not as valuable. How do we know that? Look at what the league pays each position. You're right that receivers have become more expensive. In the NFL's opinion, there's good reason for that.

Which is why snaps/dollars is a part of the argument, not all of it. Touches/production is also part of it. RBs produce far less per touch. So is average length of productive career life, particularly when you're talking about longer contracts for players with shorter expected productivity. So is width of skillset. Cook's inability to pass block hurts him, but not Saquon, who's a bully when protecting his QB. There are more factors involved. You know all this very well. Another good reason why you can't reasonably compare contracts between RBs and WRs, or any other positions, really.

Right. That's why you can't compare RB and WR salaries and doing so will only confuse any issue you're looking at. RBs are considered to be worth less. That's why they're paid less. Gabe was not paid more than Saquon. But yes, more than most RBs. Doesn't mean it was a good contract, obviously that Jax gave to Gabe. Might've looked a lot more reasonable if he hadn't been injured, but we'll never know. But the league finds RBs more fungible than WRs. With a few Saquon-like exceptions. Overall this seems pretty reasonable to most. Paying a guy at a more fungible position more than the league thinks he's worth does not seem like a way to get a competitive advantage. Not all zigging where they zag is good decision-making.