2003Contenders
-
Posts
2,690 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by 2003Contenders
-
-
16 hours ago, Simon said:
Is there evidence that the Bills ever offered him a contract? The article makes it sound like he had an offer from both the Steelers and Bills and was mulling over them. Maybe he had a standing offer from the Bills? The article also says that his agent was pushing the Steelers' offer, and it is highly unlikely that the agent had an epiphany from above. 🙂
-
7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Fascinating that this post comes from a guy in Seattle.
Yes, and he also overlooks the number of jobs and boom to the local economy that will be created by the building of the new stadium. So the tax payer funds can rightfully be viewed as a genuine investment.
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:
Do you know that Beane did not offer a similar contract? No you do not.
What incentive would Bates and his agent have to sign a long term deal as an RFA - especially with the little tape on him? Almost all RFA’s end up signing their qualifying offer for 1 year and hit the market the next - just like Wallace did for the Bills this year.His agent would of been asinine to sign a long term deal this year - 1 year away from unrestricted free agency when next year the salary cap is beginning its huge jump - without testing the market.
The problem is no one knows what discussions Beane, Bates, the coaching staff, and the agent have had - so you have to go based on previous discussions and things Beane has said. He has repeatedly stated he doesn’t mind letting guys test the market to find their worth if he thinks they are looking for more than he thinks is fair. He has done it with several players.My take from all this is the Bills had an AAV in mind and wanted a longer term deal. The agent and maybe the player wanted to hit FA next year. Using the tag allowed the agent to go find his worth around the league and still allowed the Bills a chance to resign.
My guess is if Chicago decided he was worth an AAV of 5-6 million or more - Beane walks away and uses that money to sign another Veteran guard. If it was around 4 AAV - he obviously matches and gets a deal done. It makes the agent and player happy as they essentially tested the market and gave Beane control over the situation.
The problem I have with your logic is twofold - you make a primary assumption that Beane and the agent did not have discussions on a long term deal or what the parameters around that might be. We do not know that either way, but based on other RFAs across the league - it is common that these guys end up signing a tender and hitting FA the next year.
The second issue is that you say he literally couldn’t have paid more and that will not be answered until next year. If he had signed the tender - plays most of the games and the Bills as expected win and go deep into the playoffs or even win it all - how much is he worth on the open market next year when the CAP goes up by 10-15 million.
Beane is not perfect, but he used the tools he had to get a guy signed long term that the team obviously likes (they traded for him to start with) and got him locked up long term to an AAV they seem comfortable with. My gut tells me Beane would of preferred an AAV of 3.5 rather than 4, but I believe long term 4 was acceptable.
The final thing is we do not know if this was the biggest offer - that was the offer he signed. There is always a chance a team like NE offered him more on a 1 year deal and he was uncomfortable with the situation. There is also the chance that Chicago wanted to structure the deal differently ( @GunnerBill heard up to 8 million for 1 year), but Bates and his agent made the structure they would sign something the Bears were fine with and if they wanted the Bills could match. Whatever deal came out had to be something agreeable to Bates and his agent and they did not have to sign the biggest offer nor did they have to sign the offer that was hardest for the Bills to match.
We will never know, but we can now see that the Bills valued him and wanted a long term deal and around 4AAV was acceptable.
Very well laid out.
I can't understand why any Bills fan would have an issue with the way that Beane handled the Bates situation. The bottom line is: do you like the 4 year $17 M contract? If not, then the Bills were not in a situation where they HAD to match it. So the argument that the team overpaid for him is ridiculous. If they felt that the contact that the Bears presented was more than the value they had placed on Bates, then the absolutely could (and should) have allowed him to walk. Actually, given that the Bills did choose to match the offer, tells us how highly they do think of Bates -- and given that they had the right of first refusal, never seriously placed them in jeopardy of being unable to match a fair offer.
Also, we have not seen the year-by-year breakdown of the contract. We just know that it is $17 M over 4 years with $8.8 in the first two years guaranteed. That could mean a $8.8 M signing bonus in 2022, which for cap purposes can be spread out over 4 years -- or $2.2 M per year. If year one base salary is the vet minimum, the cap hit for 2022 would be less than $3M. I think we are assuming that the Bears probably front loaded the base salaries a bit more than that hoping the Bills would not be in the position to match, but we will have to see.
In addition to the excellent points you made about the risks of applying the 2nd round tender, we also have to remember that, since the tender immediately hits the cap, the difference in the 2nd round tender and Right of First Refusal tender was north of $1M. As we saw with the activity in free agency and all of the additional moves to clear up space to sign Williams and others, every $ counts. Beane's approach served as a stalling tactic while they addressed other needs, cleared up cap space and effectively allowed the Bears to do their work for them.
I am not saying that Beane is batting 1000 with his various moves as GM. I just fail to see why anyone has a beef with his handling here -- unless you don't like Bates and do not believe he was worth the contract. But that would be another issue entirely.
-
2 minutes ago, SoTier said:
I used to be a big Mayfield fan, but I don't think that Mayfield is that much of an upgrade over Tua at this point, especially when it comes to maturity and growth on and off the field. Tua seems to have made more progress as a QB on the field. Mayfield seems to keep making a lot of the same mistakes he was making in his first or second seasons. Both of them had to deal with the possibility of being replaced by Deshaun Watson, and Tua handled it as an adult while Mayfield handled it as a whiny, entitled brat.
I think that the money is less of an issue with Cleveland than having an aggrieved Baker Mayfield sulking in the locker room. One way or another, I think the Browns are sending Mayfield packing before the season starts.
Agreed. Also, especially given all the QB moves that have been made around the league thus far, it is noteworthy that every move that the Dolphins have made has been to bolster the supporting cast around Tua. It appears that they want to give him every opportunity to succeed before deciding to move on at the QB position.
-
1
-
-
Another point about the Carolina -> Bills and now Bills -> Giants connection... recall that McD and other new members of the front office had some insight into the Panthers' draft board back in 2017. The Panthers were reportedly in on both Zay Jones and D. Dawkins, whom the Bills moved up ahead of them to acquire (both in the 2nd round). Wonder if Schoen and the Giants do something similar to the Bills in the draft.
-
9 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
I'm glad to hear you prefer football discussion. That's the point here. If you have more football discussion to add, pray continue.
There is not a lie here. Someone interpreted the man's comment as snarky. He said that was not his intent. You don't know him, you can't know his intent. Take the man at his word absent conclusive contrary evidence, and derive your entertainment without insulting people gratuitously.
That's not football discussion.
No one demanded "show me your board" when debating a topic/player. The exact quote was "Ryan, can you explain to me your definition of BPA as well as your process for putting together a draft board?"
Explain the process. Not "show me your board".
Since the claim @RyanC883 seems to be making (as I understand it, sorry guy don't mean to put words in your mouth!!) is that Beane didn't draft "BPA" because Epenesa and Basham fell, that question is entirely relevant to having a good football discussion about this. If we don't understand how he thinks BPA is defined, and how draft boards are put together, it can't be discussed because there doesn't seem to be a shared understanding of terms.
We get that a lot around here with terms where people go back and forth for days and it turns out they define "Bust" or "Franchise QB" differently and that's the basis of the dispute.
When it comes to BPA, beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. Also, the definition of "Best Player Available" really does not truly mean that literally -- but perhaps more along the lines of "Best Player Available at a position that it makes sense for the team to target". For example, the Bills would not be drafting a QB at #25 this year even if the best player on the board is, in fact, a QB. What BPA to me means is being flexible about the position rather than zeroing in on a specific position at the expense of quality. For example, the Bills could logically draft a CB, OL, WR, DL, TE, or RB there and rely on their scouts to direct them on which player is the best player and match for the team.
A couple of things about Boogie and Epenesa... For one, both players are still very young and the verdict is still out a bit on both -- even on Epenesa, who needs to take a major step forward in this, his 3rd season. Second, heading into both of the last 2 drafts conventional wisdom was that both of those players were borderline 1st rounders, so taking both at the end of the 2nd round seemed like good "value" at the time.
-
30 minutes ago, Big Turk said:
Any updates on this? Seems like we would have heard something regarding this by now.
Why not with McKenzie? Dude had great production when he got opportunities. Ask the Patriots.
Also I think we could see McKissic line up in the slot more than we think.
Agree about McKissic -- I think much of that underneath volume will go to him. While McKenzie was fantastic in the Pats game, I just don't see him being a huge part of the passing game week in and week out. I think the relatively small size of the contract he signed with the Bills likely echoes that thought as well.
-
1
-
-
Some random thoughts when it comes to Beasley...
1. He was heavily utilized in the passing game. His 112 targets and 82 receptions were both top 30 in the league. The 82 receptions were actually 17th for all receivers ahead of such guys as D. Metcalf, C. Lamb, M. Williams and J. Chase. His conversion rate (targets leading to receptions) was 73% which is elite and (top 10). Beasley also saw a rich share of receptions in our offense -- second only to Diggs in receptions and targets. Replacing those targets -- and the confidence that a replacement receiver will make good on such a high percentage of those targets is not going to be easy.
2. As others have pointed out, while the volume is great -- the production was seriously lacking. Top 30 in targets and top 20 in receptions -- he was not even top 40 in yards. That little over 8 yards per reception average is (putting it kindly) not very good. And only 1 TD reception on the season?
3. Getting McK back is great -- but that just means that this is not ANOTHER hole to fill. E. Sanders is almost certainly gone, so that is one more hole to fill even if Beasley remains. McK is great in his gadget role -- but I am not at all confident that he will be able to step into a full time slot receiver role -- certainly not in the high capacity Beasley role. And we do not have anyone else on the team that I believe is a good fit in the slot. (Diggs can play anywhere -- but it would be a waste to limit him as a slot receiver).
4. In Josh Allen we have a rare QB that can get the ball to any spot on the field at any given time. As the season wore on, it became more and more evident that the short passing game was a point of emphasis. Perhaps the "other" McK signing indicates that much of this production will come out of the backfield.
5. You have to wonder how much of Beasley's off-field distractions last season (culminating in him having to miss playing time) may have grated on the coaches and team.
6. The fact that Beasley was granted permission to seek a trade likely clues us in to what the front office's thoughts are about his future in Buffalo. Maybe not necessarily that they are down on him -- but at his age, contract $ and the team's current cap situation -- they may feel like it is time to move on.
-
1
-
-
If nothing else, he was a very disciplined DE who set the edge well -- and could be a nice mentor in those regards to our young DEs who struggled in that capacity last year.
Would still like to acquire a genuine pass rusher though.
-
2 hours ago, Lost said:
When was this? How do I not remember this play?
That was back in 2001, when Brady took over for an injured Bledsoe. IIRC, both games went down to the wire with one of them decided in overtime. A Patriot receiver (David Patton, I believe) was blown up in overtime and fumbled the ball. The Bills recovered and were poised to get the win, but the officials ruled that a literally unconscious Patton's leg was barely touching the sideline, and since the fumbled ball touched him for a split second, the ball itself was out of bounds. On the very next play former Bill Antowain Smith took it to the house for a Pats win.
-
While it may be true that the #1 ranking during the regular season may have been misleading, the truth of the matter is that on a week in-week-out basis, the defense was up to the task. I think it would be foolish to overreact to a couple of let-downs by the defense, the biggest of which (of course) was the Divisional playoff game against the Chiefs.
The defense was predicated on the bend-but-don't-break concept -- creating a scheme that minimized big play opportunities and forced opposing offenses to chain together a long sequence of plays to score. As such, the defense was heavily reliant on turnovers and negative plays, since the greater number of plays for opposing offenses also meant a greater likelihood for mistakes.
The biggest pitfall to this type of defense is that when the opposing offense avoids the big mistakes, they are able to effectively move the ball AND keep our defense on the field. That is what happened against the Titans, Colts and Chiefs. It would be interesting to go back through and see what the team's record has been under McD when the defense does NOT force a turnover. My guess is that it isn't very good. By the end of the playoff game against the Chiefs the defense was completely gassed. The offense (rather, the play calling on offense) also deserves some blame, as they went into hibernation through much of the 2nd and 3rd quarters of that game, which put the defense out on the field even more. Rather than pointing the finger at the defense, I am also inclined to give Mahomes and the Chiefs offense their due. Mahomes managed to avoid a great deal of pressure and made some clutch plays in that game. And, despite his effective play, Mahomes and the Chiefs only put 14 points on the board in the first half, so the defense was effectively working as designed (up to that point).
All of which isn't to say that the defense could not use some upgrades here and there:
-- A true impact player at MLB. I am not an Edmunds-hater, but it is hard to argue that he is a true difference maker.
-- Depth in the secondary. Missing T. White against the Chiefs really hurt -- and we enter the off-season with key contributors (like Levi) at CB.
-- A force at the Edge. While the rotation along the DL can be effective, we are missing a guy that opposing offenses must account for on every play. We have some youth here, so maybe one or more of these guys will pan out -- but I would love to see a legitimate 10+ sack rusher come in via free agency. Easier said that done, I know.
-
Actually, that combine clip confirms what we have seen when he runs in the NFL. His mechanics look all wrong and it really does not seem like he is running fast at all -- but thanks to his long stride, etc. he covers a lot of ground in a short amount of time. LOL
-
1
-
-
Honestly, over the last few weeks I have managed to come to grips with how things went down.
It was pretty clear to anyone watching that both QBs were in the zone that game. The proverbial, "the team touching the ball last is going to win", was exactly what happened. Yes, the miscommunication on the kickoff was bad. Yes, the design (or lack thereof) of the defense on those final two plays was a mess. But, the way Mahomes was playing that day, I am not sure that anything would have mattered. If the Chiefs needed a TD there in those final 13 seconds instead of a FG -- they probably find a way to get it done.
The same was true of Josh. For example, on the series immediately after Hill scored the go-ahead TD with only about a minute to go, on the first play from scrimmage, Josh fired a 28-yard completion to Davis down the middle of the field. Earlier he hit Davis on a 75-yard TD on the first play of that series too.
When this game is safely in the distant past, as much as it hurts, I think we will be able to look back on it with some degree of reverence. Instead of blaming the coaches, kicker, defense, etc. we will be able to credit some of the superlative playing we witnessed and say that this was one of the greatest playoff games in NFL history.
-
I have to wonder if there was a conditional strategy that McD presented. That is, if Hill was back there as a kick returner, then boom it through the endzone. Otherwise, pooch or squib kick it. That may explain (but not excuse) why there may have been some confusion regarding the game plan on the kickoff.
-
20 minutes ago, BuffaloBills1998 said:
Rumor is McDaniel is talking with Fangio to be his DC. Solid DC pick up if he gets him
I keep hearing that McDaniel wants to retain the current DC in Miami.
-
Schwartz certainly did a fine job when he was the Bills' DC in Marrone's 2nd (and final) season. However, let's not forget that he had a fantastic front 4 to work with, including a still dominant Mario Williams, a young/rejuvenated Jerry Hughes, Kyle Williams in his prime, and Marcel D. before he signed his big contract and stopped caring. Each of those guys had close to double-digit sacks that year.
If we had that front 4 this past season, there is no doubt in my mind that we would be playing this Sunday -- with Frazier as DC.
-
Does anyone know anything about Flores' legal team? The fact that they are letting him speak while a lawsuit is going on and the fact that the lawsuit itself is all over the map -- alleging a variety of things against multiple teams that have nothing to do with racism -- makes me wonder if this whole thing is more about forwarding a political agenda rather than truly trying to win a lawsuit.
-
There is a part of me that likes the notion of bringing in an up-and-comer like Martin. However, with defensive-minded MCD at HC would prefer someone a bit more experienced. Good news is that with Josh, the OC position in Buffalo should be viewed favorably, so we should see a quality pool of candidates.
-
Prayers for you and your family. RIP, Coach Williams.
-
1
-
-
First, I will say the same thing about this game that I said 31 years ago when "wide right" happened and 22 years ago with the MCM happened: no game is ever defined by a single play -- even if that single play did make a significant difference in the outcome of the game. Although the infamous 13 seconds were comprised of 3 plays (4 if we count the kickoff), the same concept applies.
That is, there were a bevy of other things that happened earlier in the game that in their totality were actually at least as significant as what happened with those 13 seconds:
-- What if the defense actually tackled Hardman -- or simply shoved him out of bounds, rather than giving up a long TD run?
-- What if Daboll had not had brain farts on back-to-back series in the 2nd quarter when the Bills were at midfield -- and for whatever reason decided to take the ball out of Josh's hands?
-- What if Jackson does not idiotically grab the receiver's jersey on a play where his violation had no impact? Instead of the Chiefs settling for a FGA, they wound up scoring a TD a few plays later thanks to Jackson's penalty that came on 3rd down.
-- What if Davis (who, I know, had a career-defining day) manages to get his feet down on that 3rd down play in the 2nd half?
-- What if T. Jones, who is supposed to be a veteran on special teams (the only reason he is even on the roster) does not make the out-of-bounds mistake on the punt? Instead of a re-punt, where Hill almost ran it all the way back, the Chiefs would have been pushed much farther back?
-- What if anyone on defense could have made a tackle to prevent Hill from taking a short crossing pattern catch to the house?
-- Finally, let's not forget that those 13 seconds led the Chiefs to TIE the game, not win it. The defense had an opportunity in overtime to keep the Chiefs out of the endzone and failed to do it.
This reminds me of the series that ESPN used to have. "5 Reasons Why..." There are a plethora of them for this game that lasted well over 60 minutes to blame everything on what happened in those 13 seconds.
As for those 13 seconds...
The kick (to squib, kick high and short or boom through the endzone) debate will likely go on forever. We even have a conspiracy theory in place that suggests that McD wanted them to squib it -- but Bass never got the message. Personally I would have done the high/short kick (inside the 10) that seemed to work well most of the season, but I can see arguments for kicking it through the endzone too.
The real problem was the poor coverage by the defense on those final 2 plays. They made it WAY too easy for the Chiefs to get the distance they needed. It did not even take great plays from Mahomes and his receivers to get into FG range. Mac Jones could have done what he did! I think that is the part that stings for me. It was almost like they were playing to prevent a TD rather than prevent the Chiefs from getting into FG range.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, appoo said:
I don't know about this. We play a ton of Cover 2/4/6 because I don't think McDermott are confident their off corner can handle their jobs. Getting a 2nd corner means you're able to drop one of Poyer and Micah into a shallow zone far more often than the Bills do - especially against good teams.
Think about the Hill TD - that was one of the rare times the Bills were in straight cover 1 with Micah Hyde over the top. Hill utterly dusted Levi on a crosser, and with everyone manned, they didn't even realize he had the ball until he was at full speed, and that's game over.
A corner who's 30% better than Levi probably means Hill doesn't have a full 2 feet of seperation - and it also means you can unleash your really talented safeties.
I think someone like Rasul Douglas makes this defense A LOT better
I hear ya, but those crossing routes that Hill runs are by design set up to force coverage to get caught up in traffic -- essentially Reid likes running these "legal" pick plays. That's why Tre White has also had trouble at times keeping up with White. Of course, the best defense for that is to rough Hill up at the line of scrimmage and get some pressure on Mahomes as these crossing routes take a long time to develop.
The Bills undoubtedly need a difference maker as a pass rusher (free agency) and a sturdy CB (either via the draft or free agency).
-
One thing that just dawned on me that I can't believe I didn't think about before...
When Kelce makes that catch, he is racing down field -- in no way trying to give himself up. It isn't until Wallace comes up and tackles him is desperation that he calls a timeout, which gives the Chiefs 3 seconds left to set up the field goal. What if Wallace DOES NOT make that tackle? With our safeties playing so deep, I wonder if Kelce would have allowed those last 3 seconds to tick down in a vane attempt to make it to the end zone?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, No Place To Hyde said:
We know the result of the play...not the play call.
It's entirely possible (though today it's more convient to yell about coaching) that the play was called to kick high to the 5 and force a return and our young kicker was too hyped up and put too much leg into it.
Based on McD's comments after the game, this is exactly what I think happened.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Saint Doug said:
I don’t think it does. The whole contract and all its implications is transferred to the receiving team.Actually it does. The unamoratized portion of the player's signing bonus would immediately hit the original team's cap.
-
1
-
Whaley interviewing for Steelers GM
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
I remember back when Nix was hired, many pundits criticized the move -- citing an up-and-comer in the Pittsburgh pipeline named Doug Whaley as a more viable option. As fate would have it, Whaley wound up taking an assistant position as an understudy to Nix. Given Nix's age, it was pretty clear that Nix was a short-timer, and that Whaley's time serving under him would be an apprenticeship.
Nix hired Doug Marrone not long before he left. Given that he knew he was heading out the door, I suspect that Whaley must have had some input on the hire -- just as I suspect that he must have had some say-so on the drafting of E.J. Manuel a couple of months later. Still, it is quite clear that Whaley and Doug Marrone did not get along. I still remember the meltdown that St. Doug had during training camp of 2014, when he had to be restrained from physically going after Whaley (and Russ Brandon).
When Marrone left, the reports were that Whaley wanted Hue Jackson as the new head coach and was overruled by Brandon and the Pegulas to hire Rex. Obviously Jackson would have been a disaster of a hire (even worse than Rex) -- but if the Jackson hiring had occurred, it is likely that Schwartz would have stayed on as DC, so who knows?
As a whole, Whaley's time here was a mixed bag. He did a decent enough job scouting and running the war room on draft day -- but failed to ever land us a genuine franchise QB. As a visionary roster/team builder he was lousy. As others said, he was OK making patch moves here and there -- but never had a long term plan and did not do a great job managing the cap. Whaley also never seemed comfortable talking to the press or representing the franchise. A larger than life personality like Rex, who craved media attention, helped shield Whaley during that time-frame. But when Rex was fired, Whaley wasn't even comfortable standing up in front of the media -- and hung his interim coach out to dry. He's been making media rounds lately and seems much more comfortable in these regards -- so maybe he has improved in terms of his communication and presentation skills. Still, I doubt that he will ever be the guy that is able to build a contender from the ground up.
Having a polished, forward-thinker like Beane on hand now, we see just how much Whaley was lacking.