Kirby Jackson

We are largely in agreement. Brunson is a bit of a unicorn, in where he won, who he won for, how he did it. He’s immortal. For example, I’m not sure if Cam Newton or Matt Ryan have a different life now with a ring. I don’t think it changes Jalen Hurts’ life either on the positive side. It really just depends. Josh specifically, will have MASSIVE earning potential after his career because he’s interesting. He has the Hollywood relationship and everyone loves him.

It certainly changes your legacy. I don’t know how much it changes if you won a ring or not for earnings. Charles Barkley has made plenty of money after playing without a ring. Pat McAfee is about to sign a $60M a year deal (apparently). Gregg Olsen & Ryan Fitzpatrick are doing fine post-career with no title. If you’re interesting, there’s money to be made. I’m not sure how much more someone gets because they won a ring, it’s certainly not a $20M gap. That’s what we are asking these guys to sacrifice annually. FWIW, I don’t know if any athlete in history has ever given up $20M a year (besides Brunson kind of). Connor McDavid just left a lot on the table and that hasn’t worked. That’s part of my pushback on the question. If it’s never been done, it’s not realistic. A few million dollars and it becomes a real conversation. @MJS hit the nail on the head. Would you take a 25% pay cut to watch the Bills win the Super Bowl? I would love to say that I would, but I wouldn’t (especially not each year). I have a family now to consider. I went through a “free agency” of sorts last summer. It’s obviously apples and oranges to an athlete, but the process is similar. I resigned for my job knowing that there was demand for people in my position. I talked to all of the viable options. There were lots of factors to consider for all of them. Money, both guaranteed, upside, and potential risk were massive factors. Coming from where I was, quality of life was hugely important as well. Ultimately, I ended up taking the biggest number, with the biggest upside and most risk. It has a great quality of life but at the moment, the pressure is real. I “bet on myself” and so far, while I’m happy, the results aren’t anywhere near where I want/need them to be. If I could do it all over I’d make the same decision because this is best for my family. There’s a pretty good chance it doesn’t work out.

I think the chances of 82% of TBD, leaving $20M a year on the table, in exchange for a 40% increase in Super Bowl probability, is less likely than Sydney Sweeney, playing ping pong, in my basement, with Kim Jong Un, an alien from another galaxy and Sir Paul McCartney.

Oh I figured it would be. It’s EASY to say, “I’d take $20M less” when answering a poll on TBD. Put those contracts in front of everyone and watch how quickly people sign the bigger one. The poll isn’t reality. What are people actually doing when presented with the opportunity? Almost all take the money. In fact, name one athlete, besides Brunson, to leave $20M a year on the table in sports history? I can’t think of any. There is a place where comfort, ease, championship opportunity, etc.. is worth leaving some money on the table. For example, $55M for Josh Allen in Buffalo is better than $58M in Arizona. If Arizona would give him $70M though and Buffalo was only willing to give $50M the conversation changes.

My kids would be but not everyone I would like to help. If that were the case, we would see lots and lots of people take less. If $60M and $40M were virtually the same, why do 99.9999% of the people take the $60M when presented with the opportunity? It’s significantly different.

That’s an oversimplication. You could fund hospitals, scholarships, businesses, etc.. You can make it so that generations are set for life. That’s what you do with the money. That’s what you do when you’re rich. We praise these NFL guys all the time for restructuring their deals. What restructuring a deal looks like, is “we will give you all the money now that we would have given you over the next ___ years so that we can spread out the cap hits.” Restructuring a deal gives the athletes MORE money because it is now growing interest for them. The guys taking the pay cuts are almost always (98%of the time maybe) doing it because that’s the best deal they’d get out there. In terms of Brady, they estimate that he left somewhere between $60M-$100M on the table over his 23 year career. Let’s split the baby and call it $80M. That’s $3.48M a year. Now would I leave THAT on the table? Still probably not, but much closer, and more realistic than $20M a year. Brady made that up many times over off the field. He’s a guy that we praise for “taking less” but $3.48M a year is WAY different than $20M a year. That holds especially true if your wife’s net worth is $100M more than yours AND you make lots of money off the field. It’s still rare. $113M or whatever it was is actually unheard of. It may end up working out and he is now immortal. That was a massive discount though.

I’m certainly not pulling a Brunson. That’s the most extreme discount in history. I don’t take a discount in my current job so that they can add more talent around me. That’s on them to figure out. I negotiated for every dollar that I could get. Just because the numbers get bigger, doesn’t mean that would change. I suspect a lot of people will say that they’d take less. It’s easy to say in a hypothetical world that you’d leave $20M a year on the table for a chance at a ring. The reality is, a very, very, very small percentage of people would actually do that when presented with the choice. Athletes top 10 priorities are their families. We don’t like to hear that but the ring is not at the top of the list (or all that close to it). It was different back in the day, but with salaries are where they are, the opportunity for generational wealth is by miles priority 1.

Just horrible, gone far too soon. His story is a tragic one.

Call it a feeling. I never believed that they would run with Coleman/Palmer opposite Moore. I just assumed it would be Cooks. Maybe I’m wrong and they really do leave it as is. You’ll notice, I have no yards for Palmer as he goes out in this scenario.

I’ll say 4800 yards for Josh: Moore - 1000 Diggs - 800 Shakir - 600 Kincaid - 700 Coleman - 400 Bell - 250 Cook - 250 Knox - 350 Everyone else - 450 yards

I’m 100% on board with making a move for the guy opposite Moore. Just be completely unstoppable. Run defense won’t matter because no one will be able to run because they won’t be able to keep up that way. Rush the passer and create some turnovers. That’s the shift that I think needs to happen. Throw caution to the wind and try to dominate. You’ll give up some big plays but will make tons. Make it a track meet with lots of possessions. Dare teams to try to keep up with Josh.

I don’t think it’s luck as much as philosophy. The Patriots built everything from Tom Brady out. The Bills have tried to build everything else and have Josh cover issues. This year feels like the shift. Let’s stop asking Josh to cover and understand he isn’t “1/11th.” He’s the reason that you’re where you’ve been just like Tom Brady was. The entire philosophy needs to be “keep up with us because we have Josh Allen and you don’t.” Forget about outlasting teams and try to run away from them.

He’s, arguably, the game’s biggest star. Josh is the best player at the most important position in sports. He dominates the game in a way that no other player does. He has a fun personality and is a human highlight real.

The first sentence is making my point. The natural next question is “would you?” That’s the concept. Teams say,”let’s look at everything to decide which was more successful.” In golf who performed better the 20 handicapper shooting 79 or the 4 handicapper shooting 78? It’s not a great example but the point is that we don’t know what’s best until we aggregate all, possible, measurable, data points and analyze them. Ray Davis, in 2025, was a good use of a touch. In 2024 he was not. In terms of 6 years, I’m saying that he has 2 with the Bills. Keep in mind, I called him the most overrated player on the team entering 2025, so I’m by no means a fanboy. I’m betting that the next 2 years look like 2025. If they do, a Rodriguez or Mitchell deal is coming. After that, I’m assuming that he can bounce around for 2 more years as a returner and depth back. That’s the 6 years.

In a lot of ways “analytics” are predicated on the concept that the result is not necessarily indicative of success. Each data point is compiled and a “score” is created. For example, as a S you might have been better on a 28 yard completion than on a tackle for a 2 yard gain. How did you do on that play vs. an average player? That’s the basic concept anyways. Teams now have all this information. They have thousands more data points than back in the day. That’s why efficiency is all that really matters. They aren’t impressed by the Bettis season where he had 13 TDs and 3.8 YPC. They would view that as, “he was bad for most touches”and not “he scored a lot of TDs.” This entire response is in regards to the intial post suggesting that he was 2 seasons from bagging groceries. He’s not. If he performs at the same level over the next 2 years, as in 2025, he will be looking at a deal like Mitchell or Rodriguez. Teams will see him as, a back good enough to be in a rotation, and a very good returner. If he looks like the slow, plodding back that he looked like in 2024, he will get less.