BADOLBILZ
-
Posts
25,169 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BADOLBILZ
-
-
15 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:
I could see drafting a RB this year relatively high kind of like lions did with Gibbs, even if they want to try to extend Cook. I like both Ohio state RBs, fast and can block and catch and both have a lot of experience but not too much tread on the tires bc of sharing the load for their careers.
As much as I hate to see it.......I can see it. And in fairness, Beane's day 2 RB picks haven't been among his worst day 2 picks. Treveyon Henderson would be a particularly fun player and significantly more talented(and a true 3 down back) than Cook.
Beane's work in round 2 is on par with what has been 60 years of bad drafting in round 2 for the Bills. Likely having 2 of them again this year.......it might be time to trade them. He can't seem to handle the psychology of round 2. He just picks too needy, IMO.
But if you are going to be needy RB's are pretty easy projections and tend to provide better value than RB's picked between pick 11-32. So at least there is that.
-
12 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:
All fair and the argument would be that Cook has just over 4x the touches with good efficiency. I suspect Cook ends up at $12.5M and Johnson at $2.5M-$3M.
If all that it is about is touches you can try to squeeze those numbers in and pretend they equate.
But someone has to pick up those blitzes on obvious passing downs that Cook cannot........and it has to be an equally dynamic option when he gets the ball OTHERWISE Cook's lack of ability in that regard becomes liability in his ledger.
That's why their snap counts are so much closer than people realize and why Cook is not nearly as valuable as his efficiency on early downs may suggest. That's where a GM has to be smart and not pay a 2 down player 3 down money.
When you factor in the gravity/importance of of 3rd downs with their overall 40/60 snap share of 800 snaps......... then why wouldn't Ty Johnson be worth AT LEAST half of what Cook is?
I think Cook with his current $5.5M hit and Johnson at a projected $2.5M represent a fair distribution. Cook would get much more on the open market.......which he's not entitled too yet.......simply because he's proven he can handle bulk use.
But when you start comparing his bulk use to that of players like Saquon making $12M the value isn't even close.
-
1
-
-
Just now, BarleyNY said:
Yeah. That’s all in line with my point. You can’t know how it’ll all shake out for your team or anyone else. No harm in some fans making some optimistic projections, but we will see dozens of things to change those projections leading up to the season and then again during the season.
Do you think you will know more about how it will shake out later in the offseason? Or in the preseason?
Other than some additional knowledge key injury issues.......which can still happen at ANY time....you probably won't.
Remember when the Ravens were the #1 seed and then added Derrick Henry? They subsequently had a worse record and didn't advance as far.
The teams that appear to make more moves or bigger moves won't necessarily come out on top either so you have to take the offseason with a grain like anything else. The Chiefs won a SB after subtracting their best offensive skill player. You could argue that the Bills got better doing the same after subtracting Diggs and like 5 of their captains. Chiefs and Bills made far lesser moves in the offseason than Baltimore and Houston and still sent those teams packing in the divisional round.
-
1 minute ago, LabattBlue said:
Be more specific? Let me get out my crystal ball and see how the draft, FA and training camp goes for all AFC teams. 😂
Is someone making you come to TBD and open threads about getting the #1 seed?
See my message to Beast.
Your speculation the day before the opener would have no more validity than making it does today. The preseason favorite the day before regular season kickoff has gone on to win like 2 of the last 20 SB's or something.
It's all just entertainment.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Beast said:
Predicting strength of schedule 7 months before kickoff is a foolish task.
Thinking anything you discuss on a message board has anything other than entertainment value is foolish.
And here you are thinking that.
-
2
-
-
34 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:
What about the moves other AFC teams make. Not possible for them to improve in the offseason?
Well then, be more specific.
Do you mean a team like the Chiefs who has more key free agents hitting the market than Buffalo and already glaring holes at both tackle spots? Or the Ravens with their franchise LT scheduled to hit free agency, Derrick Henry at age 31 and Lamar Jackson having had 2 recent seasons end prematurely due to ankle injuries in his career? Cincinnati with Higgins a free agent and Hendrickson perhaps having to be traded to create room to retain Chase?
Of course, things can change. But they can change at any moment of the season as well. We can deal in the known.
The Bills don't have much hitting free agency. They should return their entire OL intact. The players in danger of aging out on the Bills roster already largely figure to hold smaller roles next year should they even be retained. Their QB is not only coming off his best year but is the most durable in the NFL. I mean, there is a very realistic scenario where the Bills do nothing in free agency, just draft where they currently stand and still win the AFC next year due to attrition with teams like KC and Baltimore.
Knowing that, if they can make some very positive additions, like we hope, they could easily enter the season as the favorite in the AFC.
-
2
-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:
So much depends on when you get some opponents. The Lions are a great example. Essentially their entire defense was out injured when we played them. It’s a vastly different game if we’d have played them week 2.
Do we play in Miami in sweltering heat or in December? Or at night? Do they have to come up here in the snow? Do we have to play the same divisional opponent twice within a couple weeks? So much left to shake out. Not the least of which is what teams add and lose what players - Bills included.
Yeah but you could say the same about the Bills 4 regular season losses. Baltimore and Houston lost 12 games when it mattered in the regular season. The Bills lost only 3.......but lost to both of them in great part due to timing. The Rams needed perfect timing to align to win against Buffalo. Bills caught them at the absolute worst time. The timing of the draw against the Lions balanced that out. The Patriots only won because it was a meaningless game for Buffalo. Hence, 4 losses.
I wasn't one of the people who thought Buffalo was going to struggle last season so the schedule played out in a manner that was fairly predictable. INCLUDING most of the specific games.......like the losses to Baltimore and Houston, who both figured to be better than they actually were in the regular season.
-
1
-
-
Just now, LabattBlue said:
We have FA, the draft, OTA’s and training camp to get through. Just a “wee bit” early to try and figure out who will get the #1 seed in the AFC…don’t you think?
I mean, they didn't get much impact from last offseason's free agent or draft moves, don't have a lot of key players primed to age-out like they had in other seasons and don't have much to lose in free agency..........so why would we anticipate LESS than the team that went 13-3 before letting NE win the finale? 14 wins will probably get you home field or within a game of it.
An 8-0 start might be too early to anticipate getting home field advantage throughout........ but it's a message board and we talk about stuff like that. The schedule certainly lines up favorably between the amount of home versus road games and the quality of home opponents versus those on the road(where the Bills lost all 5 of the games that they dropped this season).
-
25 minutes ago, uticaclub said:
As the season progresses, easy schedules often become challenging, while tough schedules can turn manageable; this pattern occurs every year.
It often happens because of the parity in the league.....but it's not a pattern per se. And sometimes those teams that surprise are doing it largely due to a last place schedule of their own. So maybe they go into Carolina next season when the Panthers are 9-7 or something........that record might not reflect their ability to matchup with the Bills. And, of course, sometimes teams projected to be bad just stay bad.
The tangible point that the OP hasn't mentioned is that the Bills get 9 home games this season. They had 9 road games last season.
One of those 9 in 2025 could be at a neutral site.......but those will happen for every team every 2-3 years........and despite their experience in England a couple of years ago, I'd rather play at a neutral site than have the 9th game be against the most dominant team in the NFC like it was this past year.
It looks like a favorable setup for the Bills to finally get the #1 seed this season.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:
Gross stats don’t tell the story of effectiveness. They tell someone how often you did something. Tony Pollard had 260/1079/5? You’re saying that’s better? What about Connor at 236/1094/8? Mixon at 245/1016/11? Najee at 263/1043/6? This isn’t 1994 anymore (or even a decade ago). Advanced stats and efficiency stats are infinitely more important than gross stats. You know that. That’s how players are judged in 2025. That’s how you end up with Lamar’s 2023 MVP season (while receiving 49 of 50 votes). Teams care WAY more about EPA than they do about rushing yards. They care about “how did you do when you got the ball?” That’s why analytics departments and people are all over the league. They’re measuring the effectiveness of each player on each play.
You are making the effiency point with your Ty Johnson illustration. This was Johnson’s 6th year. It was his 4th fewest touches and he produced his 2nd most scrimmage yards on that. He made $1.3M this year. You can expect that number to double next year. It isn’t because of how many total yards or touches he had!! It’s because of how impactful those touches were, as you so eloquently laid out.
Oh I agree with the concept that you ABSOLUTELY want more efficiency per play over bulk mediocrity. I absolutely don't want a Najee Harris eating up touches inefficiently.
That's why you split up the job between 3 non-"bell cow" types like Cook, Davis and Johnson.
For all Ty Johnson does, including playing ST's and pass blocking efficiently, if Cook is worth $15M on 485 snaps then how is Johnson only worth $2.5M on 429 snaps(over 300 on offense)? Both are remarkably efficient at what they do........but Johnson a bit more, fwiw. It can't be both ways........Cook can't be worth 6x more using your rationale.
-
4 hours ago, Billzgobowlin said:
I'm not sure the data supports that age. Maybe 28-30 but not 26
Well if you read the brief article I provided which illustrates said data.......then it should be fairly obvious that if you doubt the information you should provide your own.
-
32 minutes ago, T master said:
The Bills had to let go of Tre Da go due to his injuries, he has since played some time on other teams and seems to be healthy again . I was wondering if the Ravens were to cut him and the Bills could get him on a very friendly contract given the cap restraints this season would you consider bringing him back as a veteran depth player ?
Beane/McD would have to make sure to let him know he is a depth player and not a starter unless of some kind of circumstance that could arise .
His experience as we all know is top of the line and could help some younger players that they bring in . He has shown because he played against the Bills in the play offs that he can play if needed although it probably isn't at the level of play that he once was, or (some probably know better than i) could he be one to transition to play the safety position ?
He is 30 yrs old so this could go against him but he was out for 2 seasons due to his injuries so he doesn't have those 2 seasons worth of play where he was taking hits and all against him so does he have that much left in the tank to possibly sign him ? Just a thought and was wondering how our fans would feel about something like this .
Tre White isn't under contract to the Ravens. His deal with the Rams was one year and that's over.
I could see a situation where he comes back as veteran depth but hopefully that would be after the comp pick formula date passes and the deal were for a very small amount.
Of course I was stunned by the ridiculous $10M contract the Rams gave him and he, not surprisingly, played terribly.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Steptide said:
I think this is pretty awesome for him, but are we sure he even wanted a car? I work with some guys that take the bus everyday because they don't want to pay for car insurance or gas. Hopefully this works out for him. Pretty cool regardless
Hopefully he can stay on the righteous path with a p#ssy magnet like the Chevy Traverse.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:
It would be a shame for this to happen right after Vogelbach retired.
I was thinking more about Tyler Wade. That guy has never seen a breaking pitch bounce at his feet that he could resist swinging at but he can run like nobody's business out of the left handed batters box. There are a lot of Billy Hamilton type guys that this would benefit but few of them swing at 55 foot curveballs like Wade so have more to gain.
-
2 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:
I stopped playing D1 ball because concussions.. I had around 5 in a 2.5 year span because I always came back to fast to try and play
Never fully recovered , and smaller hits would then be more impactful
I was also a run support corner which didn't help but yeah I've seen so many head injuries end careers
Yeah it's not random from my lesser experience either. Once I knew it was sprung I could feel that instability with sudden head movements. That was totally unexpected to me. I'd never felt my brain moving in my skull before that.
-
12 minutes ago, HappyDays said:
I think we pushed him back on the field way too soon. I remember seeing Banged Up Bills post something about how players on average clear concussion protocol faster for playoff games. Nothing suspicious about that of course. So yes I'm sure the second concussion was a direct result of the first one which makes me sick to think about. But as far as I can remember those are the only two concussions he's suffered in his career. In recent NFL history Tua is the only player I can think of who has had his career really disrupted by a tendency to get concussions. It's just not something I worry about with Benford. Maybe I'm wrong and we'll get burned if we extend him early. But he's a very good player, he's a scheme fit, he fills a premium position, and I don't think he'll blow up the market. I'd take the risk.
Guys drop out of the league from concussions all the time. Andrew Luck and Luke Kuechly were both trending toward first ballot HoF before concussions did them in. Luck had 5 over the course of 3 years. I like my chances of replacing a good zone CB greater than replacing that $60M to $90M in cap space. They found Benford in the 6th round to replace Tre White. You pay scouts to avoid having to risk that kind of money.
-
1
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:
He has 70 less scrimmage touches from college to now than Ray Davis. He’s ascending and fresh. The Bills already have the complementary guy in Davis and likely will bring back the 3rd piece in Ty Johnson.
Effiency matters more than gross stats as you illustrated with the Mostert example. I was saying, “if you’re trying to mislead people with gross stats why are you conveniently leaving out that he had the most rushing TDs in the league despite being 20th in carries?” Cook was 5th amongst starters in YPC, and scored at an alarming rate (on a team with a QB that ran for a dozen more). He also never fumbles. He was a top 5ish RB last year that peaked in the playoffs. He’s absolutely the best skill player on the Bills.
I’m also not a fan of the 2 down back argument. The Bills don’t want/need him to play as a pass blocker. They didn’t use Shady in those situations either. Cook stays fresh by not taking a beating picking up blitzing linebackers. That’s not a negative. Johnson is perfect in that role and as a receiving back. Now should they have had him out there on the final drive? Of course, he’s their best skill player (not including JA obviously).
Cook is an ascending back, that’s arguably a top 5 guy and certainly top 10. The Bills don’t have any other skill players that are close to top 5 or 10. RBs are cheap too. They’re paying their second TE $10M a year. They can afford to allocate the $ to Cook because they have $17,761,391 in cap hits allocated to WR. For comparison, the Seahawks have over $62.5M in cap hits dedicated to 2 WRs (obviously they’ll try to lower that but you get the point). The Bills can afford a bigger investment in Cook because they don’t have big money tied up with the other skill guys.
Efficiency does not matter more than production. C'mon now, don't be ridiculous.
You can't be more efficient than Mike Gillislee in 2016. He literally lead the NFL in yards per carry AND(despite the contradictory nature of the 2 stats) 3rd down conversions of 2 or less in 2016. AND he scored 9 TD's on 110 touches versus Cook's lesser % of 18 on 239. MG also had 5.7 yards per touch that season versus 5.3 for Cook last year.
And he and Karlos had been just as efficient the year before. Karlos had 9 TD's on like 104 touches and he averaged 5.6 versus MG's also absurd 5.7 in 2015.
2 years in a row MG did that 5.7. He was ascending too, right?
Didn't mean he or Karlos were worth top RB pay.
I mean, what do you think Ty Johnson is worth if Cook is worth $15M?
Ty Johnson averaged almost 16 yards per catch and 8.4 yards per touch and 5.2 yards per carry. Those numbers are astronomical AND he rushes for 4.6 yards per carry for his career and can actually pass block. And for his career he's almost 6 yards per touch. More than Jim Brown averaged. He's a human highlight reel on his 390 touches.
If efficiency means more than production than I guess give him $15M too.
-
32 minutes ago, Bferra13 said:
It's not the age typically, it's the amount of carries. I'm told 2000 college and NFL carries is the magic number. He was used sparingly in college and only has 533 NFL carries. Dont get me wrong though, id be the first one to package him away for Garrett or Crosby. He's great, but replaceable.
No, it's graphed as age related decline as well. It's proven to be a bad gamble betting on RB's over age 26, regardless of mileage. The wall for some of the best might be 30 but for most the decline is significant at 27.
I tend to use mileage more with regard to entering the league. Like I remember telling all the Breece Hall enthusiasts that the dude had already burned a lot of his miles in college. Cook isn't the physical presence that Hall was at his size though. When Cook loses a tick of speed/quickness......that could be catastrophic. He has average contact balance, is not a smart player, is not physical enough to block the blitz effectively if he WERE smart enough to be relied upon.....and he has surprisingly sketchy receiving skills.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, HappyDays said:
Benford - I guess this is an unpopular opinion now but I'd extend him this offseason. Part of it is I don't think Spotrac's valuation is right - people put too much stock in their number, the actual AAV often turns out to be wildly different. No one across the NFL media sphere has recognized Benford and no fanbase is clamoring for their organization to sign him. That stuff matters when franchises have to sell moves to their fans, and I just can't see someone offering him $22M AAV. He's primarily a zone corner in a CB-friendly scheme and he's had an injury history. All of the concerns we have about extending him will lower his market value.
I don't personally worry about the concussions. 4 years ago everyone was sure Morse was one concussion away from retiring but he's still playing. Concussions are random. If anything it just gives us leverage at the negotiating table.
It's become clear to me that McDermott's scheme although CB-friendly also works much better when you have good CBs on the field. We made it work with the likes of Dane Jackson and Levi Wallace, but it was its most dominant version when Tre White was in his prime. Benford isn't quite at that level but he's still a plus player. I'd much rather just have that spot locked up and look to the draft to try and find a true shutdown CB, versus completely starting over at CB in 2026.
Shakir - Let him play out his deal, than tag and trade him in 2026 if you know you can get a 3rd or more. I really appreciate what Shakir brings to the offense but slot WRs with YAC ability can be found on any day of the draft. He isn't going to become an outside/downfield WR and that's where we need to make our biggest investments.
Bernard - Let him play out the year and see. If he stays relatively healthy and plays well I'd be comfortable giving him like $7M AAV in 2026. If he has a repeat of 2024 give him 1 year $4M or something like that. A player with his size and injury history isn't going to blow up the FA market no matter how he performs this year.
Cook - I've laid out my thoughts in the other thread. I'd look for a trade partner now, ideally a 3rd but I'd take a 4th if it's the best offer. That's $5.2M in immediate cap savings which is fairly significant and you can use the pick to draft another RB.
Concussions aren't random. It wasn't random that Benford got them in back-to-back games. The first one was the primary cause of the second one.
Morse stopped getting them when he changed behavior and became less physical of a blocker. Eric Wood made a similar alteration to his game at center after breaking his leg and tearing his ACL when playing hard instead of smart. He went from a tone setting brawler to a guy who had to play angles and block edges of defenders to survive. That's why he was trash in Marrone's man blocking run game.
But back to Benford........once you've rung that concussion bell to the point that Benford has......they become easier to get. Think of it like a sprained brain stem. If you badly sprain a joint it's easy to re-sprain that joint for a long time. Having had a very bad one, I know. And Benford is not a Center playing in closed quarters most of the time.......he is going to have to tackle runners at high speed in the open field and he is going to be the victim of high speed friendly fire at the tackle point. If you recall, the last concussion Morse had was a blitzing LB hitting him at high speed. Not your typical interaction at center. As messed up as Benford was after that second brain injury there is no chance I am extending him. That could quickly turn into a full waste of all guaranteed money.
-
2
-
-
26 minutes ago, BillsFanForever19 said:
You're not wrong that production matters. But what matters just as much if not more is age, an ascending ceiling (Cook has gotten better every year), and wear and tear.
Age is not on Cooks side.
RB's generally peak at age 26.....and this season is Cook's age 26 season.......which he is under contract for.
After that there tends to be a sudden decline for most. Which is not directly correlated to usage or "wear and tear". This is why teams typically want to draft a RB and use them up.
https://www.fantasypros.com/2021/07/at-what-age-do-running-backs-decline-2021-fantasy-football/
I thought it was particularly telling when the author said these guys are due for decline...........then listed Derrick Henry and then a half dozen guys......who would then subsequently fall off.
Henry was very high use compared to most on the list.
The odds are AGAINST Cook bucking this trend.
If he does? Good for him and the team he is with but that's not a risk I would take when RB's are so easy to replace and my team is perennially cap-strapped.
-
40 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:
Are you trying to use volume stats to downplay Cook’s value? If so, add TDs. He will always be a part of a committee. He was in college too. Henry, Gibbs, Barkley and Irving were the only starting RBs with higher YPC. Cook did so while seeing the 3rd fewest reps against 2 deep defenses. If you want to talk about how valuable he is, don’t try to give rushing yards or carries as your argument. His efficiency is what matters. McDermott and Beane believe in a RB by committee and that goes back to the Carolina days with Williams & Stewart.
When it comes to contracts.......production matters.
Not efficiency created in part out of planned absence because of that player's limitations.
Would you pay a rotational DE anywhere near the same as Myles Garret when that rotational DE has a higher pressure % but half the production of tackles/sacks/TFL/QB hits?
Of course not.
So why is paying Cook like a star to produce like a very good 2 down RB even a discussion?
He's a 1,000 yard back in a league where there are guys pushing 2,000 and earning less than what he wants.
And no the TD stat means very little. Raheem Mostert, released today after a terrible season, had as many TD's in 2023(18) as Derrick Henry and Saquon Barkley had combined. It's a low volume stat that is too often entirely unreflective of either work done OR dynamicism. Was journeyman Kareem Hunt in 2023 anywhere near as valuable as James Cook when Hunt ran for 9 TD on just 135 carries versus Cook getting just 2 TD on 237 carries? Of course not.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:
The value of the RB increased this year. $12.5M AAV with $24M GTD would slot him between Mixon and Taylor. That’s seems fair.
James Cook was 16th in rush yards and 20th in carries and 22nd in touches in 2024.
Taylor was expected to be top 3 in rushing every year when he got his deal. No comparison in expectation.
Joe Mixon was expected to continue to be a high volume, 300 touch type guy and play 3 downs. He's a career 19+ touch per game player. Cook is a career 12.85 touch per game guy with a far lesser TD per game rate(if you think TD's should factor in) and he has to come off the field on 3rd downs.
You are REALLY overplaying Cook's value. Give him another 150 touches like Saquon and then we can talk about paying him like Saquon after we see what happens.
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, BuffaloBill said:
Sadly, there is a definite shelf life for the majority of RB’s in the NFL. It’s part of what the Bills have to consider when paying someone like Cook.
But he had over 1,000 yards and 18 TD on 4.8 yards per carry in 2023...........basically the same year James Cook had last year(statistically at least).........by James Cook logic and the logic of some here on TSW that should have warranted a 4 year extension worth $50M to $60M.
Do not pay RB's.
-
6
-
9
-
1
-
4
-
-
Beane shouldn't extend any of them or the other candidate in Rousseau.
They are all just in an awkward position where they either haven't played to their capability yet(Rousseau), have concerning injury issues(Bernard and Benford) or play devalued/easily-replaceable positions(Cook as a RB and Shakir as a slot-only on a team with 2 other starter-invested WR who would be better in the slot and 2 highly invested TE's).
There is nothing wrong with waiting on the group of 5 extension candidates. Sometimes that's the play. And not extending ANY of them avoids any resentment or appearance of preferential treatment between teammates.
Draft replacements in these next two drafts where they will likely have like 20 picks over the two years.
-
6
-
1
-
James Cook on IG Live - "15 mill year" EDIT: Scrubbed his IG and Doubled Down on Twitter
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
C'mon now, Mixon was not just a 2 down guy and he didn't get $10M aav. He was coming off 110 grabs the prior 2 seasons when he signed that deal.
If Cook would take that same 3 year extension at $25.5M then I think Beane would probably be all over that whether the contractually obligated Cook has the leverage to pull it off or whether anyone likes it or not.
As for Mixon outperforming Cook, that is largely irrelevant because the deal was for what he had been doing. Which was putting up 300+ touch seasons and bringing a physical element to the game on any down.