Thurman#1

You're damn right I don't want to move on from Edmunds, Oliver or Singletary. Edmunds and Oliver in particular would leave massive holes. Oliver and Edmunds particularly. And yet they may have to say goodbye to one next year, already. Possibly even two, though my guess is only one. But we've got no backups for Edmunds or Oliver (they don't see Bernard at MLB, I believe) and would have to bring in high-priced FA replacements or use a high pick to switch in and suffer the mistakes a young guy makes and the lack of veteran savvy. It would be creating holes that would then have to be filled. Burns - assuming we could get him, and I know you've already said you're aware they don't want to let him go - or someone like him amounts to putting ourselves into a situation where we get more and more cap squeeze and have to create more and more holes. Burns would help, but he's not needed. And there are guys who would help but are not needed at every position on the field outside starting QB and Von's position. We're already the #1 defense, a scary group, because they are getting pressure with the front four without having to blitz. If you can get someone who could help for cheap, great. No need to start spending like a sailor. Beane is conservative and yet still able to field a terrific roster with significant future flexibility. That's a very very good thing.

That's just not true. Nobody says we have no money. Nor is it true that there is no suffering if the players are still good. If every player were still good, that would only mean Beane wouldn't be forced to incur dead money. Dead money is not the only problem when your cap is in crappy shape. Far from it. Beane probably did overspend his original intentions a bit when Von Miller became available. But we didn't pick up CMC, or any of the many other high-priced guys still available after that. Beane still left plenty of re-structures and other ways to kick the can on the table. For good reason. We shouldn't use the money we have in a wildly reckless way. This team is built so that their excellence is sustainable. That's because Beane left those restructures/extensions on the table. He's financially conservative. And that's a good thing because it means we'll be able to react nimbly in the future.

Yeah, theoretically we could do that. And it would theoretically be possible for me to buy a Lamborghini if I was willing to put myself into the most extreme types of debt. But it would mortgage my future. Just because something is possible does not mean it's a good idea. Doing any of what you're suggesting is not a good idea.

Without considering money, that's a fair offer. But I don't see us bringing in any high-dollar guys at this point. He wouldn't be worth that as a one-year loaner, and we've already got a financial quandary coming up with us likely having to let someone go we'd rather keep. I don't think we could extend him when we're already paying Von Miller to be our standout rusher.

Remind me, did you say "The bolded is legitimately the worst team building strategy ever"? Or did you say, in total .... Exactly. And for the second time, you seriously think he meant "every other year," literally? That he really meant only exactly every two years, whether you needed an RB or not? Seriously, that's what you thought? If that's the core of your argument, I feel even sorrier for you.

Yeah, could be. I worry about that. A league with a functional Wilson is a more exciting league. It would also mean a tougher AFC, though, so perhaps I should root against him, but I can't. I like the way he has played when at his best.

Yeah, I took issue with you calling not drafting any RBs in the top 20 and not giving any big second contracts a terrible strategy. DUH!! It's a terrible strategy. As for picking guys late in the first, again, go back and read what I wrote about drafting in the late 1st round in the post just above, the one, the one you just responded to. Again, you seem to have this inability to successfully read before you respond. Being strict about his exact words, no, it's not a good idea to decide to draft something precisely every two years. I'd have thought that was obvious. You seriously think he meant "every other year," literally? If that's the core of your argument, I feel even sorrier for you. But drafting an RB around the 2nd to 4th round when you need one? Yeah, that's good strategy. I'd allow the 5th as well, probably, but yeah. I wouldn't mind picking up the occasional low to mid-priced FA (Yeldon and Antonio Williams, for example) to fill in the cracks either. Yeah, good strategy.

So, you can't read either? I guess about all I can do here is give a double facepalm and move on. It's like trying to argue with my seven year-old daughter. Four years ago.

This may be one of those arguments about what elite means. For most, it's top three or four in the league. "Elite by any definition"? Nah. Not by that one. I don't think Russell Wilson has been elite. Maybe brushing it for a year or three, but not elite. Terrific? Yeah, absolutely. Top eight or so his entire career? I think so, though if someone wanted to argue he was only top 11 or 12 his first year, I wouldn't fight too hard. But not elite. Oh, and wins are not a QB stat, they are a team stat. That's what the difference between Wilson in Seattle and Wilson in Denver shows, and particularly the difference between Wilson's win percentage in Seattle from 2012 to 2020 vs. Wilson's win percentage in Seattle in 2021, 6-8, when he was playing almost as well as he'd always been.

I'd say you keep topping yourself, but it's really bottoming. You just get worse and worse. Why are you so desperate to look bad? You say, "BB is not some mastermind 'team builder' because he won a lot." Do you have any idea how stupid that is. You apparently think that the way to show you're a team builder is losing? Good lord, dude. Yeah, he is a team builder, a spectacular one. And it is exactly the fact that he won more than anyone else that shows it. And who drafted Tom Brady? Oh, yeah, Bill Belichick did. While he was building a team. Dude, I didn't say "top 20." Are you drunk? Seriously! Remember the post by DJP about which you said, "That's legitimately the worst team building strategy ever," remember that one? He said top 20. And you bashed him for it. That's why I responded. Get a clue. He insulted teams that pick RBs in the top 20 and that you should expect us to keep picking an RB in the late 1st to 4th. Again, you told him "That's legitimately the worst team building strategy ever." Which is both wrong and dumb. The only thing wrong about what he said is that the Bills haven't picked an RB in the late 1st and there's no evidence they ever will.

Another purely wack-a-doo comment. Yes, his Super Bowl wins absolutely show Belichick is the best team builder in the last 20 years. Hate him as I do, it's still not close. Not to mention that you're dead wrong in your other contention there as well. Quick, find a spot where six times in the last ten years shows "no one" wants to do that. Six top 20 RBs chosen in the last ten years and a bunch more back to 2000. So, wrong again. Oh, and how many of those six teams won the Super Bowl? Yup, exactly. Not to mention that you just got finished making the argument that not picking an RB in the top 20 was half of what you called "legitimately the worst team building strategy ever." A genuinely ridiculous argument, granted, but it's what you said.

The evidence shows differently. Belichick followed it, never using a top 20 pick on an RB and never giving an RB a big 2nd contract. Yet he's the best team builder in the last 20 years. Where are all the SB winning teams recently that have spent top-20 picks on RBs or given them big 2nd contracts and then not regretted it? The Rams picked Gurley before McVay, under Fisher, and giving him a big 2nd contract was a massive mistake. Edwards-Helaire was picked way after 20th and if they had that to do over again, they likely wouldn't have picked him at all. You have to go back to the Seahawks, who gave Lynch a big contract and were happy about it, though the team that drafted him above #20 lived to regret it. The Saints picked Reggie Bush #2, and he was still on their roster the year they won the Super Bowl, giving them 390 yards that year. After the Seahawks, I didn't check every single year but I think you have to go back to the 2000 Ravens to find a team that had a high draft pick or high second contract RB running on a Super Bowl winners. In fact, it's the strategy used by most SB winners which makes it very very far from the worst team building strategy ever. Closer to the best, actually.

So far, yeah, virtually without question. And it's just plain dumb implying Cook is a lesser RB. We don't know what he is yet, but he could very easily be worth a 2nd and Singletary is overproducing for a 3rd. So far in the last four years, since they got Allen and Edmunds, they've picked up Oliver, Rousseau and Elam where they would have drafted an RB in the first. Three players who look excellent so far, though the last couple of years you really can't be sure yet. And all at players of much more need than RB. And we have a decent productive RB group so far. So far this year, without Allen included they're averaging 4.55 YPC behind an OL that was really having problems early.

It is not a dime a dozen position, that's a great overstatement. But yeah, it's a better idea these days to get one a bit later, particularly in an offense like ours that just doesn't run a ton. Yes. He was absolutely great to watch those first few years.

Jeez. What a great kid!! Wonderful stuff.

OL, please. Beckham's more affordable, so if I had to go with either one, I'd go with him, but I'd rather have OL help.

He was absolutely excellent in college. Look at the winning percentage of that team and compare the win rates when he was in and when he was out. There's a massive difference. He was dominant. He wasn't dominant in a way that convinced everyone that his dominance would carry over to the NFL.

Me? My dad and my mom. Or at least, that's what sources tell me. But who knows, my dad may have outsourced his part of it.

As a regular watcher of their podcast, yeah, I think so. They've never claimed to be insiders or have much access.

Thanks. Too much, IMO. But we'll see. Thanks. Sorry I didn't look. I should have.

Two thirds? Three seconds? That's pretty unclear. Wonder how much it is specifically. EDIT: Ah, I see now. Thanks for those who told me.

Wouldn't mind one of the top two or three picks being OL, or maybe even two out of the top four or five. Odds of #1 and #2 being OLs would I'd guess be somewhere around 100:1. Higher, maybe. Never too early to talk draft, though I don't put much attention there this early.

Good point. This probably has a lot to do with it as well.

Yeah, Shaq has been effective at a low price, and Jordan Phillips has been playing much better against the run than he did the first time here. It seems that everyone loves being here and they really are getting the absolute best out of these guys. Settle is the only one who's not reaching or exceeding expectations. That may or may not be due to injury, we'll have to see.

Yeah, the first couple of years Star was very good. Not at rushing the passer, and not as good as Daquan but he was doing the job they needed done, space-eating, at a high level. He never rushed the passer the way that Da'Quan can, but he was a really effective at absorbing the blocks and handling double teams. He never attracted doubles at 78%, but he did draw a lot of them and handled them well. He clearly lost something after that, got it back briefly when he lost weight, slowly became a bit less effective again, and then after COVID he was just a shell of himself. He just seemed to lose the motivation that's so absolutely necessary to do that thankless job and then COVID just gutted him. Many on here refused to see how well Lotulelei was doing those first couple of years because they wanted the glory stats and the pass rush. These days it's a lot easier to get guys to come to Buffalo than it was when they signed Star.