billsfan89

If I were running the team I would kick the tires on Flacco but with the public health situation that is going on getting him to a doctor you trust for a physical might be a big barrier. I would probably look to sign a vet and draft a QB in round 6 or 7. The QB drafted late goes to the PS and then vet battle with Barkely for the backup spot. But I am not spending big bucks no a backup QB and I am not drafting one before round 6.

This is all hypothetical as we don't know if Clowney's price tag is coming down just yet or if he would accept a one year deal at this moment. I agree if the cost of upgrading Trent Murphy's roster spot is 7 million plus Lee Smith I do it. Especially since a one year deal for Clowney doesn't impact the team's cap situation long term beyond a little bit of roll over. BUT I think the Bills should monitor the situation and wait in the wings with a 18 million dollar one year offer. I would even still consider a DE in round 2 or 3 even if they swap Clowney for Murphy just to get younger a deeper behind the older Hughes and Addision.

According to Spotrac the Bills without EJ Gaines and D.Williams calculated have about 23 million in cap space for the top 51. The Bills do need 5 million for the rookie pool and typically GM's like to have about 8 million for emergency signings. So that only leaves the Bills with about 10 million in "pure" cap space. They could easily cut Trent Murphy for 8 million in space and then Lee Smith for another 1.75 million. Those are the only "easy" cuts on the roster that I see. The rest of the possible cuts would sacrifice depth or more useful role players. Now that does not factor in D.Williams and EJ Gaines contracts. I doubt Gaines is anything other than the vet minimum. D.Williams could be a deal above the minimum in the 2-3 million range. So assuming a generous 3 million dollar deal for D.Williams (Just to overestimate) that probably leaves the Bills with about 8 million in real cap space. So the Bills could cut Murphy and Lee Smith and have about 16-17.5 million in cap space to offer Clowney on a one year deal. I think that would be competitive with what a team like the Jets or Cleveland (2 teams with more than 30 million in cap space) could offer. As far as Markus Golden I wouldn't hate it but I think he would be a marginal upgrade over Trent and I would rather draft a DE in round 2 or 3 and roll over the cap space to ease the extensions in 2021.

Why would the Texans not just franchise Watson? This thread is presenting a choice that Watson would actually be available.

I was shocked when they signed EJ Gaines and D.Williams as I thought they were done then. But I will agree that I can't see the Bills making any more signings before the draft and I think any singings they make after the draft will be very low key depth signings. As much as I would love an all in move to sign Clowney to a one year deal I don't see it happening. I would love to see them cut Murphy and sign Clowney to a one year deal (I don't think Clowney is a process guy but as a one year mercenary looking for that big payday I think he can work) and then focus the draft on offensive skill position depth and secondary depth.

His agent timed that 3 year deal perfectly. He got a nice 40 million plus and is going to be 28 and a free agent and will have a good shot at one more big contract (and playing in KC's offense might help inflate his stats.) I think that players are going to emulate that model going forward. Typically players become free agents around 25-26 and they are usually lucky to get 1 big contract. I think a lot of guys are going to sign big 2-3 year deals to get a second crack at a good contract when they are 27-29. As opposed to signing 5 year deals whose guarantees run out after year 3 anyway and then they are unlikely to hit the market for another good deal. I think we saw that same thing with Shaq who got a good deal with Miami but then will be a free agent again at age 28 where he can get another 3-4 year big payday. Smart for players to try and maximize their value on shorter term deals.

Win win for both sides. Sammy was hugely overpaid on that deal but still brought positive value to that offense. Basically Sammy gets his guaranteed money and some incentives to make up a lot of what he gave up. KC gets some cap space to make them a functional team cap wise while keeping Sammy. Sammy gets more than he would on the open market in an offense that can inflate his stats just in time for another free agency run.

I agree that Goff in large part benefitted from having so much talent around him in 2017 and 2018. But at least Goff had 2 seasons where he sustained a high level of play, Tannehill was given only 6 million less for half an above average season. In my mind Goff was a mistake that one could see coming but at least had some semblance of sense to it. Tannehill was a mind numbing mistake that had no logic at the time nor makes any sense long term. I think teams are too afraid of losing a QB who is decent. I get that decent QB play is not so easy to find but I don’t think the Redskins really regret not paying Cousins 90 million guaranteed. Whereas the Titans will regret that Tannehill contract soon and the Rams are already hamstrung by that Goff contract. And I think Goff is a good QB (Probably would rank him between 10-12 in terms of QB's) but you can't pay a good QB like a top 3 QB, the Rams probably would slot him in the 28 million range which would have freed up 8 million in space that could have been used to sign a couple of decent starters.

I would say about 85% of throws are less than 20 yards or blatant throw aways. BUT that 15-20% of throws that go deep down field opens up ease of the other 80-85% of throws. The reason Mahomes and other elite QB's chew up defenses is because it becomes pick your poison he will be patient and dink and dunk you or if you tighten up on him he can beat you downfield. Even Brady who was much more of a precision passer the last 7 or 8 years still would go downfield just enough when teams were exclusively looking to clamp down his short game. I will fully agree that Josh needs to improve his short and medium range game, he made significant progress last year but he still has a ways to go. But Josh regressed in his long range game last season. In 2018 Josh's long range game was solid, still not where it needed to be but he was at least solid in the long range. In 2019 I think he worked a lot on getting his touch in the shorter and mid-range game up by taking some heat off the ball but that also messed up his calibration on the long range game. I hope in 2020 he figures out how to polish up his short range game and recalibrate his long range game. It is that balance he needs to find in his game.

The deep ball and long medium range passes are what separate the good QB's from the great ones. You have to be able to hit passes downfield in order to keep defenses honest. If you are only able to work the short and intermediate range you end up like Chad Pennington where your success is always going to be capped because great defenses will force you to beat them downfield. Unlike a Chad Pennington Allen has the arm strength to make any throw. He has to be good enough at the deep ball to keep teams honest enough to keep the short and intermediate routes open.

Faulk was the most annoying player ever. Any time the Pats were struggling to move the ball he would get them a couple of critical first downs in clutch moments to set up a winning field goal or grind out the clock. I would be shocked if Beane trades up from 54 unless it is a minor trade up 3-6 spots. I think given the need for critical depth and youth at several positions (DE, Secondary, LB, WR, and RB) trading away significant picks to make a major trade up could end up costing the Bills the ability to plug smaller holes on the roster in the mid to late rounds.

Goff was given a deal after putting together back to back very good to great seasons in 2017 to 2018. They just paid him early but at least given the context there was some sense to it. Derek Carr's contract actually makes sense. His aav is 25 million in 2017 which while a high end contract wasn't too bad. He constantly throws for well over 4000 yards, is super accurate, and has a TD to INT ratio that is usually 2 to 1 or better. He is an upper mid-level QB getting paid like one (and the fact that the deal was front loaded makes his current 20 million dollar cap hit better.) But I agree why pay guys like Tannehill and Cousins so much? Cousins is at best an above average QB who is getting paid like a top 10 QB with an insane guarantee. Who was paying 30 million for Tannehill on the open market? I would rather have lasic surgery Jamis for 10 million than Tannehill or even Tyrod plus 23 million in cap space than Tannehill. I think teams need to start playing hardball with QB's who aren't top players. Let a QB walk if some other team wants to commit 30 million to a guy who can't throw for over 100 yards in a playoff game. That's why I think the Cowboys were and are smart to franchise Dak, why pay him 30+ million if you can't win with a team constructed around him and a massive cap hit dedicated to him.

I remember thinking QB contracts were getting crazy when they eclipsed the 20 million mark around 10 years ago. Of course I did not fully grasp the percentage of cap concept and was just looking at the raw numbers. Now we are well into the 30 million aav range and easily going to get well into the 40 million aav range once Mahomes gets his deal and the cap goes up with more revenue coming in from the 17th game, 2 extra playoff games, and various other squeezings of revenues.

Weird signing, not sure he was ever reinstated.

I agree with your assessment that they should transfer the slate of games from Thursday to Monday, that would fix the tremendous problem of the games being bad. I guess my point is that the issues with MNF are fixable whereas almost no matter what you do (unless you mandate the teams playing on Thursday's have a bye the week before) the short turnaround for TNF is almost always going to be an issue. Whereas MNF doesn't have that same huge logistical barrier, they just need to improve the selection of games and the broadcast. I know hardcore football fans who really love TNF for the reasons you stated. I think TNF is really loved by the hardcore fan as long as the quality of the games is decent. BUT I think for casual fans and the quality of the product TNF should go.

I think the players would much rather play on Monday than on Thursday for that reason alone I would just keep MNF and ditch the Thursday games. That's the best argument against the Thursday games is that the players really express disdain for it. Monday being on a 24 hour difference is something no player has expressed concerns over. I also argue that unlike the Thursday games where a lot of the play is sloppy due to lack of practice and a quick turnaround the issue with the Monday games not being of the highest quality is fixable by getting them a better slate of games and improving the broadcast.

Sanders was a solid choice but not sure how much he has left at best he has 1 maybe 2 good seasons left. Diggs will turn 27 in 2020, he has 3-4 prime seasons left if he doesn't get hurt and could probably be a high end WR2 into his 30's as his game will age well. Yes it did cost the team more to acquire Diggs but hey go for it.

The Monday night time slot is much better for the NFL week and the players than the Thursday night slot. But while I will agree that the Thursday game last season was in general better than the Monday Night games; but over the past 5 years I think the Thursday game has rarely been good (Usually it is typically a sloppy game that is a blowout), whereas the Monday night game has been more consistent despite not having marquee matchups anymore. I will agree that both have paled in comparison to the Sunday night game. I think that the Monday game serves as a fun final NFL game to cap a week. Whereas the Thursday game happen only 3 days later and isn't an effective way to kick off an NFL week. The decline of Monday Night football stems from Sunday Night Football getting the "A slate" of games and the Thursday game coming just a few days later (thus eliminating the whole last chance to see football for 5-6 days thing.) ESPN's poor presentation has not helped either. If I were in charge of the NFL I would gut the Thursday game (Except for Thanksgiving and opening week) and focus on rebuilding MNF as a big prime time event. I would try to keep SNF as big of a deal as it is but try to force ESPN to make broadcast improvements while getting as good of a slate of games as possible. Maybe I am just antiquated but I never really enjoyed TNF.

I think the growth in the USA is nearly impossible at a high level. How much more popular could football get in the USA? I am sure you could pull in some more casual fans but overall the growth in the USA only comes from milking the existing fans by putting on more games and creating more of the product. Whereas American football has gained a foothold in the UK and Mexico both markets that combine for over 100 million people. I also think that Germany is another spot where growth in it is possible. I don't know where else you could grow the game but international expansion in terms of marketing is a must if the NFL wishes to grow revenue meaningfully. As far as officiation of games? I agree the NFL needs to find a way to cut down on flags. But what exactly can they do to cut down on flags? What penalties do they call too much of? I legitimately don't know. Roughing the passer and QB protections are needed (I don't think allowing more borderline hits on QB's really adds to the value of the game) but they could be relaxed in a way where defenders know what they can and can't do more clearly. There are far too many rules that put too much onus on the defender to just know how to ease up on a QB in live play. I also don't know if "under officiating" the games makes them better. Seattle's legion of boom basically mugged receivers taking advantage of the NFL officials not wanting to "over officiate the game" and they were a slog to watch defensively as their pass defense amounted to pulling down receivers over and over again. Sure they were talented and still good in the years after but they went from an all time great defense to just a great defense because they couldn't take advantage of the way the rules are enforced. I think that you run the risk of coaches and players taking advantage of rules that are more lax in enforcement. But then you don't want to call flags on every play either?

Burrow just turned 23 whereas Allen is about to turn 24 in May. Your point is valid but it isn't like they are the same age exactly.

The Thursday games are rarely good in my opinion. The players hate the 3 day turnaround, the games are often sloppy quality wise and they are rarely compelling matchups. MNF has been hurt by the fact that SNF took the best games when MNF moved to ESPN and the fact that it went from the only nationally televised game each week to now one of three makes it feel less special overall. Thursday games also ruin fantasy football in my opinion because it is a constant thing you have to monitor as opposed to just putting in your waiver claims Tuesday and adjusting your roster Wednesday and then you are good until Sunday. Monday being only one day removed from Sunday doesn't alter the players ability to prepare for games. I think MNF is a salvageable product whereas TNF is an abomination.

I think fatigue and overexpose is real. Monday Night Football is not really a relevant game anymore and I think the 3rd Sunday game along with Thursday games have been a big factor in that. I think hardcore football fans love more football. However the hardcore fan is going to watch no matter what. I think that growing revenue by just making more of the product for hardcore fans isn't a sustainable business model. They should focus their efforts on improving their efforts to get international expansion and casual fans as opposed to just squeezing more out of their existing fan base.

That was from the Spike TV version they did which was more adult oriented haha. But the Nick show while a bit more risqué for a cartoon is mostly good for kids to watch (depending on how old and to what degree you let them watch more risqué stuff.)

I wish he would expand his game but some guys are just athletes who can't for whatever reason expand their skillset and as the old adage says you can't teach speed. I think his current value is as a WR 5 who has a few plays designed for him with the added value of being a backup kick returner.

Monday Night football used to be the event of the NFL week. Now thanks to Sunday night football and the Thursday night game (among other factors to be fair) Monday night football is an after thought. The fact that the NBA, NHL and MLB regular season games are often overlooked shows you that constantly playing games and putting your product 4-6 days a week on national TV can severely overexpose and water down how important games feel. Even on Thanksgiving no one really cares for the 3rd game. They want to see the Cowboys and Lions games early in the day and then just pass out or enjoy the day with family. To me personally I used to love the NFL a lot more before the Thursday game. It used to be that after Monday Night football the NFL would take some time and reset. Tuesday you would do a recap of the Monday game and power rankings/early previews. Wednesday to Friday were just building anticipation previewing the weeks matchup and Saturday was college. Now with the Thursday game the NFL is omni-present and it just waters down the specialness of NFL football to have it on every 2 or 3 days. It does long term damage to the brand in my opinion because if something is always on it is never on. I guess my gripe is that the increasing of the playoffs, Thursday games, adding of a 17th regular season game, and all these things don't expand the appeal of the NFL to the more casual audience but just simply milks the hardcore fan who is already buying the product. It is just a lazy cash grab one that could be very short sighted.