billsfan89

Owners are greedy and there will for sure be a saturation point, I just think it is dishonest when looking at the facts to think that the players salaries are keeping the ticket prices high. The owners are charging those outrageous prices because people pay. They would pay the players less if they could and charge more if they could. The owners are not passing savings onto the fans. But as long as there is a lot of money being made and produced by the NFL the players deserve their share of that revenue. They aren't overpaid because they are simply getting their share of the value they produce. I think it is just silly to put out the blanket statement of "They are overpaid" without thinking through the consequences of what that statement means. The owners are going to be greedy regardless of what the players get paid. Do you honestly think if the players got paid less then the owners would pass those savings onto the fans? No the owners would just make more money. I would rather the money that is being paid by the NFL fans go to the players that are hurting their bodies and working themselves into peak physical condition than into the owner's pockets. So you can't really act like the money being paid to pro-athletes is being taken out of the hands of the fans or other people like teachers and construction workers. The players are just getting the share of money that the owners make off of them.

is Fede, Odighizuwa, Russell and these other back up DE's really going to outplay Shaq, is Shaq really that bad? Also is Lorax lining up at DE or is he in the LB corps? If Lorax is a LB then that means Shaq has to get beat out by 2 of those backup DE's to not make the roster.

So the poor owners are underpaid.

CEO's and super high-level executives and talents get years of guaranteed money, I don't know if it is 4 years worth or not I am not privy to their compensation contracts but high-end talent always gets guaranteed money. Because if you are integral to the running of an organization or producing the product a company will give you guaranteed money to be paid out to some degree, because if you are that good at your job some other competing company will give you that type of deal to acquire your talents. The "Golden Parachute" term comes from companies having to buyout CEO's and top executives of the remaining months or years on their contracts. I know for a fact that the commissioners of the NFL and other sports leagues are on deals that range above 4 years worth of guaranteed money so it must be common at some level. "Why should someone that plays a game to entertain people get 4 years of guaranteed money?" Because they are elite level entertainers responsible for a product that produces tens of billions of dollars a year. For one I did not say that they should get 4 years of guaranteed money unless it is a QB. I would cap contract length at 3 years for non-QB's and 4 for QB's but all deals are guaranteed unless you are making a minimum deal and don't make the 53 man roster. That would end holdouts as you wouldn't have players unsure of their future and both sides would be forced to honor the deal. The shorter length of deals would also limit the risk to teams. It also doesn't matter what you think someone should get paid. If they produce value they should be compensated accordingly. The NFL players are literally the product the owners sell if you think they are overpaid for their value to society or some nonsense I can't argue with you, but the notion that if you paid athletes less that money wouldn't just end up in the owner's pockets is silly. As though the reason we can't pay teachers more is that NFL players need their big payday. By saying NFL players are overpaid you are saying 1 of 2 things, the owners who are all billionaires should get more money or that the government should tax everyone's entertainment dollars and keep money away from the players and owners so that they can pay that out to teachers or whoever you think really deserves it. I am not mandating the government step in and force the NFL to handout guaranteed deals. But I think if the NFL players union were to get shorter length but fully guaranteed deals that it would actually be mutually beneficial to both sides since you wouldn't have holdouts and owners would have less year of money to pay out.

My point was that camp needs to play out more. 2 so-so practices does not a training camp make. You have to let it play out more. Players are in shape conditioning wise but there is still football rust to be worked out. Shaq is a player who is a little bit smaller than he was playing at in the past, probably needs a week or so to get used to playing at that weight. If its week 2-3 of pre-season and Shaq can't hack it then we have a real problem. Also Shaq doesn't have to beat out Murphy to stay on the roster. Shaq can make the roster as a backup/rotational player. The Eagles and Jags showed that you need a full unit of rotational guys to be effective pass rush wise. Shaq has to be the 4th best DE on the roster to make the team. Shaq is on a cheap contract so there is no reason they wouldn't keep him as a backup.

Anyone predicting 0 wins is an idiot. But honestly I myself think this will be a 6 win season. The defense will carry the team to win some games but the offense might be the worst in the league. That's not to say that I don't think the team isn't headed in the right direction. The defense is in place with lots of good pieces, the offense has a clear plan at QB and some other pieces. The culture change is in full effect and the team will be out of cap hell come the 2019 off-season. This Bills team reminds me a lot of the 2003 team (The same one that finished 6-10 I believe) there is a lot of potential for the defense to be a top unit but the offense will struggle a lot. There are also a lot of depth questions. The QB position will either be a game manager in AJ or a very raw rookie in Allen, either will put limitations on the offense, the O-line could be really bad and the skill position corps is lacking esp in terms of depth. It's not unfair for a pundit to put the offensive concerns and the pass rush concerns above the progress made last year to predict regression.

With the emphasis on the pass game the past 20 years there seems to be a premium placed on DT's to be a bigger force on the pass rush. Whereas in the past DT's were main there to clog up running lanes and push the pocket. There also seems to be a thought in the current NFL that big-time run stuffing DT's are "easier" to find than guys that can rush the passer up the middle. I don't necessarily agree with that logic but that's what people around the league think. DT is becoming more of a pass rush position in recent years and given that the interior pass rush is effective that won't be changing anytime soon. I personally think that in a 4-3 having a space eater like Star is effective. Run defense up the middle is important but also having a smart DT that knows how to slide around and take up double teams like Star does is also important for the pass rush and to keep players off of the line backer. A lot of what Star does won't show up on advanced metrics or in the stat sheet but it will show up in how improved the rush defense is up the middle and how well the LB's play.

GE guarantee's a lot of their top executives and talents pay. NFL players that make the 53 man roster are at the top 1% of what they do professionally. So unless you are an elite level talent at your profession where there is billions of dollars made directly off of your talent you can't really compare that to most people's jobs. The NFL shouldn't be different than any other company but any company would know not to low ball and degrade their product which also happens to be their labor force. Apple isn't going to lowball their best engineers because some middle management guy at GE doesn't get his pay guaranteed. You also can't compare curling to the NFL. What athletes get paid is heavily based off of what revenue is generated from the sport. TV contracts, tickets sales, licensing, sponsorships, merch etc. If curling produced multi-billion dollar TV deals then yeah curlers should unionize to get their pay. The NFL should be different based off of how much revenue they produce from their product which is also their labor force. As another poster pointed out there is nothing that prevents a fully guaranteed contract in the CBA but the question is do you avoid holdouts by simply having the only types of contracts be a guaranteed one? If you did that I think you would also only see teams giving out 1-3 year deals for non-QB players (With 3 year deals being very rare.) I wouldn't have a problem with it. Players get the safety of 2-3 years of pay while retaining massive flexibility (By the time they are 28/29 they have a shot at a 2nd big guaranteed deal.) I wouldn't have an issue with shorter fully guaranteed contracts.

This has to be one of the most idiotic arguments of all time and really one that is just people virtue signaling and trying to smell their own farts for how morally superior they are because they think athletes and entertainers are overpaid and how we should be paying teachers and firefighters more. The players are the product that is producing billions of dollars in revenue. They are the talent in an entertainment product that produces 10 billion dollars of revenue a year. The players should get every dime they could from the owners because the players are the ones putting their bodies on the line and absorbing most of the risk. Unless you want the government to ban people spending money on entertainment products you are going to have entertainers that make a lot of money. Football players are no different. It's not as though if the players get paid less that money will go to teachers and construction workers. If the players got paid less they money just goes back into the owners and the leagues pocket. So stop with this whole "They are over paid for playing a game" meme. It's not taking money away from teachers and the elderly to pay these players, they are taking their fair cut from the owners. I always side with players over the owners as long as the players are being even somewhat reasonable. Certainly, in football it is always easier to side with the players given the massive risk. I find it stunning to see how many fans side with the billionaires over the players.

I am in the same mindset. I thought Rosen was the better prospect but I am more than happy to eat crow if Allen proves me wrong.

It's not looking good, but there is still plenty of time for him to turn it around. Shaq looked like a legit NFL level player last year, so I certainly think he has a shot at turning things around. I think we get so knee jerk with day to day reports that we don't really allow for things to play out the way they should.

We have had 2 days of practice in pads, even if a guy isn't looking all that good there is plenty more camp and pre-season left to go. Shaq looked Ok in year 2 in real action against real pros. I think it is possible he plays better as camp progresses. Some players take some time to settle into camp. Then again it is possible Shaq just can't hack it. My overall point was that the sample size is just too small.

I think with Shaq it also depends who else is behind him and how well are they performing? If Shaq isn't fetching anything significant out on the trade market then why not keep him if no one else behind him is lighting it up. However, if you really like a player behind him why not just get what you can or cut Shaq? Still way too early to tell on him.

I think AJ starts week 1. Allen is a project who needs to not be put out behind a bad O-line and some suspect skill-position corps. Peterman stinks in my opinion and AJ is by far the most consistent but nothing spectacular. AJ will take on that game manager role and won't look spectacular but he will look the most like a pro-QB. I predict Allen will look spectacular at times but also have some bad plays, Peterman will just look bad and AJ will just look the most consistent. Out of those 3 expect the conservative head coach to pick AJ.

It also goes to show that your pick could be rated as an A by all the prognosticators and be a bust. I am not willing to write Shaq of just because 2-3 days into training camp he isn't dominating, in 10 games last season Shaq had 4 sacks that is roughly 6.5 if he played the entire 16 games, which for a player in his second year coming off of an injury isn't that bad. Toss in the fact that he graded out decently against the run and I think you can have some hope for him. I think this idea of Shaq being toast at the moment is premature, certainly a make or break camp/pre-season but nothing so far to me indicates he is a goner just yet too early to tell in my opinion.

I would consider a 4-4 first half of the season a "good" start, but in the NFL every year teams you think will be bad are good and teams you think will be good are bad. So I think that there certainly will be some easier games in the first half and harder games than expected in the second half. Overall though I think the season hinges on the first 2 weeks. Baltimore and San Diego will be close games that will come down to a turnover or a big play or two. If the Bills have any hope this season it will be to start out 2-0 and then squeak in 2 out of the next 6 games to hit the second half of the season 4-4 where the Bills could go 6-2 (Dolphins twice, Jets twice, Bears and Lions all winable games with the Jags and Pats the only tough games.) That being said I think the Bill likely start 2-6 and finish 4-4 and go 6-10. The defense will carry the team to some wins but I just don't have faith in the offense.

I really like Edumonds and Phillips, both could be foundational defensive pieces but I was not for Allen and that draft is going to hinge on how good Allen is. I would have taken Rosen if it were my decision. Obviously, I am not paid to do player evaluations so my opinion is just that of a fan. But after looking at Allen more closely I see why they thought so highly of Allen. Allen is straight out of central casting for a QB. A big 6 foot 5 guy with big hands, a quick release, great intangibles and one of the strongest arms you have ever seen. He also has some speed and mobility although no one will confuse him with a guy like Mike Vick. But Allen didn't light it up in college and you can see he has footwork issues and issues reading the defense. He also misses some easy throws once in awhile. The footwork issues and playing behind a bad O-line probably contributed more than anything else to bad accuracy. Both are correctable for sure. But what Allen is, is a confident coaches wet dream. Allen has all the physical and mental tools to play the game, Allen just needs to be coached up on some fundamentals (footwork) and decision making processes. But if Allen can't put that together he could be a top 5 QB in the league, it is just that history and outcomes in the past say that it is rare to turn around that type of player to that degree.

IF and this is a big IF, if the NFL decided to do only guaranteed contracts you would see only 1-2 year deals for non-QB players after their rookie deals expire. Which I am fine with but that would mean a tremendous amount of volatility year to year as teams will have a shot at signing almost every All-Pro player each off-season. I think you probably would have to fully adjust the CBA. For one you would have to massively increase the 5th year option on 1st round picks since under a 1-2 year scale of guaranteed contracts having a 5th year option would be a disadvantage to players drafted in the 1st round (Basically punishing a player for being drafted in the 1st round by giving them less flexibility.) Secondly, you would have to cap contract length to 3 years. Most elite free agents would only be on 2-3 year deals while the vast majority of the league would be on 1 years deals. Capping the length minimizes risk for teams and allows players to collect on 2-3 massive deals while having flexibility. I think you would also have to see picks drafted in the first 4 rounds receive fully guaranteed 4-year deals while rounds 5-7 have 2-year guaranteed deals with team options for two more years. Any UDFA that signs a one year deal and makes the roster has that year's salary guaranteed and the team has an option for a 2nd year. After that second year, a player hits restricted free agency. The risk of securing these massive deals goes down for owners as they are never tied to a player for more than 3 massively guaranteed seasons (Which I suspect would be rare most players would be on 1-2 year deals.) The players get short-term security and long-term flexibility. I also think that fans wouldn't be as hurt because the amount of "Dead Cap" wouldn't be that much worse. If a team now hands out a big 5 year deal with a lot of guaranteed money the team is still stuck with that player for 2-3 seasons anyway. So a big 3-year guarantee that gets hurt right away only really drains you of 2 additional years. I also think that you would have to change the franchise tag a bit. In order to provide some stability for teams, you could give teams 2 "Franchise Tags" each off-season. However, all a franchise tag does is give the player the current "Top 5" average salary offer sheet that they could sign and play out or the player could sign with another team and the team that tagged the player could match the offer. That would help player retention a little bit as teams could save 2 critical players each off-season but since the player can still get an offer from another team you won't have holdouts. This system would prevent holdouts and make things a bit better for the players.

I think it is a little early to write any player off from the roster. We are what 2-3 days into minicamp with not very many days in pads yet. Lawson is make or break this training camp/pre-season. But lets give the kid a week or two into camp to see just how he is doing. Lawson looks to be in great shape after an off-season of hard work. I think he has a chance to show some value.

People kind of forget the large turnover each year in the NFL, toss in a new scheme on offense and you are going to run into some mistakes on offense, the key isn't coming out of the gate perfect, it is progressing as training camp/pre-season progresses.

Just to be clear I was not saying that is what is happening, but rather that my worst case scenario is that Allen will be forced in when he isn't ready. Another plausible scenario is that AJ or Peterman start the season and the offense struggles out the gate big time. McD turned to Peterman last year after the offense started to struggle with Tyrod. I wouldn't be shocked to see Allen start 6-8 weeks into the season if the team is off to a rocky start offensively. I have no problem throwing Allen in the last 3-4 games of the season. By that point, the pressure is off and he won't be developing habits in that limited amount of starts but 8 or more games and that could throw off his development if the offensive talent around him is bad. I think McD knows that long-term Allen is best off handled with kid gloves. But in the NFL the long term isn't always what coaches do.

My fear is that the Bills will force Allen into action because their other options stink and the worst thing you can do for a QB that needs help with his footwork is to put him behind a bad O-line. I think Allen needs at least a year to develop and the analytics are correct in that based off of his college performance you can't see the precedent for Josh Allen. But ever players circumstances are different. There is real reason to think Allen will be a bust but also a lot of reason to think he won't. You just have to let it play out.

I think he had a major off-season surgery, maybe have even had a rod inserted. If he finishes the season healthy some team would have signed him for sure.

We don't know how much pressure will be generated. The Bills should be more than solid up the middle run wise, I also think on the edge with Shaq and Hughes against the run the team should be decent. But the pass rush is a huge concern, Murphy is coming off of a major injury, Shaq coming off a injury and struggled to get pressure in his second year, Hughes is coming off a down year and Lorax is coming off a strong end to his last season but who knows exactly how good he can be at his age for a whole season. Now you could make an equally strong case each player turns in a better season but the point remains that there is a lot of questions about the pass rush. I could see a few more tackles for a loss from him. I think that there is a lot of hype with Phillips that he probably won't live up to but he should turn in a solid rookie season. The main impact Phillips and Star will have is hopefully improving the rush defense greatly.

The defense is very strong up the middle with the additions of Star and Phillips as well as the returning of Kyle in more of a rotational capacity, even Washington or John Hughes as a 4th option is decent depth. The team is also very strong in the secondary (Although the depth there concerns me greatly) and more importantly the secondary is very well coached. The Linebacker core is also solid with Edumonds and Milano but depth is a concern. The defenses fortunes will rest on its biggest question mark and that's the pass rush. Hughes, Shaq, Lorax and Murphy all could be good or they could all be busts. If the Bills can get 2 of them to pan out I think the defense will be a top 10 unit. Unfortunately I think that the offense could be a bottom 5 unit. Still I like the direction the team is headed in, good defense with young pieces in place, a young high upside QB in place on offense, a good LT in Dawkins to build the O-line around and a lot of cap flexibility coming up.