BarleyNY
-
Posts
11,779 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BarleyNY
-
-
22 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:
Ok I thought it was an ankle or something
It was listed on injury reports as a “foot” and it was aggravated by the crappy field there in Brazil so you were on point there.
A bunion is much more serious than it sounds and he probably has one on his other foot. My wife has looked into surgery for hers. It’s a long recovery. 6-12 months to get back to normal from what she was told. I’d think he is probably on the front end of that and he may be right this season. But there’s risk there that he won’t be.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:
It was the Brazil game wk1
Surface was questionable, hurt his foot or toe or something
It was his bunion that was bothering him. That’s not a joke.
-
14 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:
he was playing injured in 2024
He had bunion surgery. No other notably “injuries”.
-
28 minutes ago, Slippery Rubber Mats said:
This place would be UNBEARABLE with the sacrifices we'd need to make money-wise at other positions with a 200 million dollar contract on D. 🤣
We’d have had to have sacrificed extensions and/or day 1 FA signings for some good players and found their replacements elsewhere - the draft, trade, later in FA. There certainly could’ve been disruption to our continuity, but it’s the job of a GM to find players that fit and the job of coaches to integrate them. Certainly worth that to get a difference maker who can elevate one side of the ball. That makes a huge difference in the postseason.
-
1
-
-
On 8/26/2025 at 4:27 PM, Warriorspikes51 said:
Took my son there on his 21st birthday. Sad to see it go.
-
On 8/29/2025 at 9:41 AM, Bleeding Bills Blue said:
That ones always funny, as troups career was essentially de-railed by back injuries. And Gronk had fallen in the draft due to back issues.
-
1 hour ago, Avisan said:
This does numerically back the idea that the Bills give out a ton of midrange contracts to midrange players relative to the league. It's provided great stability and continuity that has led to sustained success, but it may well be leaving us too resource-strapped to take more FA/trade swings at elite players to get over the Superbowl hump.
Exactly.
-
14 hours ago, uticaclub said:
A dominant DT would have been exactly what we needed, and if he was available, Beane should have pursued a trade. It seems he may have only been available in exchange for acquiring Parsons. Does anyone know if there were any rumors about his availability before the trade for Parsons?
Honestly, it looks like Clark was an addition to the Parsons trade to make Dallas’ return look better than it really was. Clark was an outstanding DT - and he got paid like one. Then he had a poor 2024. GB ate most of his compensation this season so Dallas only owes him $3M. But starting in 2026 he’s on the books for over $20M each season. Either he returns to form or Dallas cuts him next offseason. So Dallas can say that they got two firsts and a Pro Bowl DT. But in reality they’re really only likely to get two late firsts and a one year rental on a DT who may not be what he was. Jerry can pretend to save face and GB gets a great deal on an All Pro pass rusher.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, Slippery Rubber Mats said:
It's too much risk for me for a non-QB. I'm worried about injury mostly
Okay. That’s fair. I’d rather take a chance like that because I think we need elite players at DE and/or WR to win it all.
-
40 minutes ago, DapperCam said:
It would have probably meant not extending 2 or 3 of Cook, Bernard, Shakir, Rousseau or Benford (and those in extended players likely walking at FA). It would also have meant no Hairston if we traded before the draft. So we’d be looking at Tre White/Rasul Douglas quality CB2 for the foreseeable future (i.e. a liability). How well did our pass rush do vs the Chiefs when Mahomes could just pass it quickly to whoever Elam was “covering”.
I think a deal for someone like Parsons only makes sense if you are in a 2 year “all in” window. Where you are pushing your chips in like the Rams did. Our roster is not close to good enough to make an “all in” move right now.
First, why isn’t our roster good enough to make a big move like this? I’d say it was a lack of elite, difference makers at premium positions - outside of Allen, obviously. My fix is to find some. Parsons certainly qualifies. Those elite players at premium positions will cost you 2 or 3 good players. Teams have got to find reasonable replacements in the draft, FA and via trade. This season the Bills chose to play things safe and keep the band together rather than take some risk and chase upside overall. I just don’t see how the current tack works out for us in January.
-
32 minutes ago, QCity said:
What the hell are you talking about?
I can explain it again for you, but I can’t understand it for you.
-
7 minutes ago, Fan in Chicago said:
I disagree on allocation of resources. If we were going to spend the money, I would have used it to acquire a stud WR. There have been way too many investments in the defense to further justify a $45 mm+ investment in a single defensive player.
I’d have been happy with either as long as that player was elite and still comfortably in their prime. But that almost never happens so you gotta take what you can get when it’s available. There was no young, All Pro WR on the trading block. There was a young, elite Edge. So I’ll take that player.
5 minutes ago, Slippery Rubber Mats said:Intentionally 🤣
But for real, at the end of the deal I don't think they'll look back at it and say they would do it again. The price is too high. Obviously, if they win the super bowl I'll be wrong.
Way to go out on a limb.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, DapperCam said:
So would an equivalent deal from the Bills be either:
- Rousseau + 2 first round picks
OR- Oliver + 2 first round picks
And then adding either 15m to the cap this year in Rousseau's case or 10m to the cap this year in Oliver's case.
I'm not sure what levers Beane has to clear up that cap space, but I understand why the Bills didn't do the deal. We already have Allen on a big cap hit and adding another big cap hit would really hurt our depth. And then you lose your draft capital, which would be your best opportunity to backfill the loss in depth cheaply.You can’t be justifying not acquiring a young difference maker at a premium position because that would “hurt our depth”. Let me be clear, the Bills made their decision on where to spend so Parsons wasn’t feasible. But if he’d come available prior to our spending spree, then not acquiring him at what he was traded for would be indefensible.
It’s worth noting that Parsons would have been traded for substantially more if this had been done in March. That might have changed the calculation enough that it wouldn’t have been worth it. But championships are won with elite players - especially at premium positions. We have one and we have to play teams with more than one when we are in the playoffs.-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Slippery Rubber Mats said:
Parsons won't be worth 188mil and two 1sts.
Calling it.
What’s “worth it” to you in this context? Seems like you’ve got a lot of wiggle room there.
-
10 hours ago, QCity said:
Well he could get hurt and never return to form for starters. They devoted a ton of draft capital and cap space to him. There's a big difference between being a wildcard team that gets bounced in the 1st round and competing for a title. He has to be the man. No idea where the 2-15 talk is coming from.
Two late first round picks is very little draft capital relative to acquiring a young, All Pro caliber edge rusher. Clark doesn’t move the needle much. He is on a very expensive contract relative to his production. GB ate almost everything already this season so Dallas has him for $3M in 2025. But that’s it. He’s over $20M after that so he’ll be cut.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, buffblue said:
So I guess the Packers are the favorites to win the Super Bowl then? Parsons is the second coming of Lawrence Taylor I've been told
Their chances just got a lot better.
-
Jerry got hosed on this one. You can’t wait until the week before the season starts to do a trade like this. He’d have gotten way more in March or April.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, saundena said:
For 2 firsts, I would have done it. But, we couldn't have afforded him.
Agreed. After we did the slew of contracts this season it was not possible.
-
3 hours ago, Shortchaz said:
What’s the deal with the spike in ketamine?
maybe I need to see what all the fuss is about 🤔
Ketamine is prescribed as a treatment for depression, especially after other treatments have been unsuccessful.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Success said:
It's true that injury concerns absolutely need to be part of the consideration. But, sometimes that doesn't work out, like when we chose Troupe over Gronk.
It's a tough one. But I get the point you're making here.
I actually didn’t mind Beane swinging for the fences a bit on this pick. He took a player at the end of the first round that legitimately could be special. Or that player may not be physically able to make it in the NFL. I’d rather that than another high floor, low ceiling player.
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, dorquemada said:
I don't know, I like them. I love when PSU does their whiteout game, it would obviously take years but would love to see it at the new stadium. Anyway, take my money, i'm in
To me white out games always look like they're surrendering.
-
I don’t usually care about jerseys, but those are horrible. It looks like they gave us Colts jerseys and pasted a silver buffalo over the horseshoe. Also the attempt at the ice buffalo on the shoulder failed miserably.
I mean, just win and I won’t care. But ouch.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, T.E. said:
They're tied in betting markets, which makes it even more weird that not one of 20 analysts thought he could win.
It’s almost impossible to win MVP two years in a row. Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodger’s did it, but that’s it. Never even happened for Brady. So unless Allen is far superior to every other QB this season he won’t win it.
Also this has the feel of being upset over a mock draft selection.
-
19 hours ago, Success said:
I'm not even sure why Beane's "misses" are part of this discussion. Do people think he should be able to see that a guy he picked in the 1st is going to get hurt?
Couple excerpts from his draft profile:
https://www.nfl.com/prospects/maxwell-hairston/32004841-4974-0557-7544-a7fed2221d85
- Hairston has the athleticism and on-ball talent to become a starter, but he needs to prove he can hold up to the rigors and physicality of the NFL game.
- Massive liability in run support.
- Below-average open-field tackler after the catch.
Let me preface this by saying that sometimes the risk is worth the reward. Hairston has real upside as a coverage CB. But the risk in drafting him that highly was his size, stature and lack of physicality.
But his injury was non-contact and that can happen to any player so I do not want to read too much into it. Still, this is not a good start for a prospect whose main question was his ability to hold up physically in the NFL.
-
1
-
Game (two week) thread - Ravens at Bills SNF
in The Stadium Wall
Posted · Edited by BarleyNY
By and large.