Rochesterfan

Well to be fair - FA has not started yet - so he was still a Bill with an expiring contract. It is not a typical extension that adds on to the remaining years, but it was completed while still under contract and without the details maybe that’s the way they worded it. I agree the wording is sketchy, but I can understand the decision to call it an extension. I mean even the Bills Twitter calls it an extension.

I don’t think you are getting your wish with the report that Addison also restructured- ala Morse and Butler. I think they are setting the table for Mongo coming back and maybe McKittrick. That frees them up to go BPA in the draft and see what other nuggets you can find in the bargain bin looking to join a winner.

Not sure it matters much. The Bills rarely use 3 LBs on the field at one time. Predominantly they play a 4-2-5 - with one of the DBs being a bigger guy to act as a LB. They need to get better at their big safety role with a guy that can really cover, but still hit and support.

We all agree that you are - nice that you see it too. 😂

They were talking on moving the chains today on Sirius that as of right now there is no opt out. It would need to be agreed to and the league was more worried about salary cap first. Now that that is done they are working on FA and the draft. It may get discussed as they finalize those aspects, but it is not guaranteed especially as the vaccine becomes more available.

So what you are saying is that Star’s home is for sale? I have read through the thread and it seems you are the only one with that info. The other mention of a home for sale was referencing Lee Smith who put his home up and has talked about retirement in interviews. Now after several pages and a very poorly written initial post - you are saying that you believe that Star is getting cut because his house might be for sale? Maybe you need to gather some thoughts and present them in an organized manner to ensure they make sense.

There has been no indications that they will allow opt outs again this year. That was a one time agreed to thing and I do not believe the NFL/NFLPA have discussed it.

Serious question - Why? I mean last year as a rookie he replaced him fine. We have another red shirted rookie - so maybe the plan is less speed and better routes. A group with bigger bodies to fight through the type of coverage KC threw at them. I think they will miss his speed, but I think they will also get younger and different production from the position. Plus the last stat I read yesterday was that Davis was the only receiver in the entire NFL over the last 8 games to have 20+ catches and average over 19 yards per catch. He found ways to get deep even without Smoke’s blazing speed.

Except - if we cut him with the injuries and games he played - would they have signed someone else? AJ was not ready early in the season - so we needed additional DE depth. So maybe we get a small savings, but even if we bring up a guy from the PS we are talking minimal savings. Rather have the guys that got me to the AFC Championship game rather than save a couple of million and have missed the guy that helped in multiple games due to his experience.

So you think Morse that just restructured is a good candidate to restructure again? You think Dawkins - that signed his new contract last year and the Additional years haven’t even started yet is going to restructure? Makes no sense. Then let’s follow that up with signing Williams, Feliciano and Carson - which uses all the money we have, but now you have cut your back up LB along with losing your starting weak side LB and your #2 DE, but somehow you are going to 1-2 upgraded impact front 7 Defensive players. Wow - just wow - not sure this Lamp post was needed - let alone it could have been put in any number of similar threads.

Is he still about to be traded? Or is this the stadium naming rights thread all over again. I hope it is the latter with Ertz about to be traded for the next 6-9 months. That would be an LOL thread.

You are correct - except the NFLPA was all for borrowing against future cap - spreading it out over 10 years - the owners were not willing to do so. Basically the higher the cap and the more years it was spread out was money out of the owners pocket - interest free. The owners wanted the cap lower and any future cap impacts limited to 1-2 years. As it is - the cap at 182.5 rather than the 160 or so the NFL/NFLPA agreement calls for - is over half a billion dollars extra the players get now that is offset over the next 2 years. That is a lot of money the owners are putting out without the offset capital guaranteed to return. This is a ridiculous take as the cap really should be 20 million lower - it was a sound agreement between the parties.

The NFLPA was happy to spread the loss out over 10 years and have the cap normalized this year. The owners wanted it limited because many are struggling with cash on hand in their real life and losing money in 2020 and not regaining that money until 2030 was bad business. The owners were willing to forgo some money, but wanted to see it repaid within 2-3 years at most - otherwise they were basically giving the players about 1 billion dollars interest free over 10 years (~40 million expected salary cap drop and 32 teams - 1.2 Billion). The expected salary cap drop based on lost revenue was going to be 160-165 million. They agreed to mid 170’s and now about 183 million with that extra money being cut out the next 2 years.

I don’t know that it is Daboll not be interested in TE routes or if it is our QB - like point 2. Nothing wrong with Josh, but he is/has typically used WRs as his primary pass catching target since college. I think he is way more comfortable throwing to WRs than TEs. Once Josh learns how to control some of that and utilize RBs and TEs as safety valves - he will become a nearly unstoppable force. My issue with thinking Ertz will do anything if the Bills trade for him is targets/targets/targets. He has been the primary receiving target in Philadelphia for years and the WR room has been a shifting wasteland of injured garbage and guys past their prime. Coming to Buffalo, how many targets does he get? In 2020 if you merge all TE targets - he would have gotten 66 targets with a 75% catch rate you get 50 receptions instead of 43 and I think that is top end levels without using any other TEs. The other thing is that the Bills have lessened the usage of a traditional TE and gone to more of an HB role to increase blocking and give a safety valve - I am not sure that fits Ertz very well - so my guess is a more traditional pass catching TE that can’t block see the field less. I have no issue with a 7th round pick and trying it, but I do have an issue with an 8 million+ salary. He will never live up to that in this offense - he will just be a huge disappointment that everyone tries to rationalize.

I agree, but at the end of the game teams would already know who is getting the ball first in OT. If I knew the other team was getting the ball first and I am driving for a tying FG - does a team get more aggressive to try and score a TD? It also eliminates them having to do a second coin toss and make another random decision. It makes one coin toss per game and changes coaches current thinking process - which has been defer in the majority of cases. I am not saying it fixes many or all of the issues - I think it is just a change that should happen and is better than screwing with things like eliminating the kickoff and deciding a starting position or going to the college OT rules (even modified for the NFL - like starting at mid field or something). I have no issue with the current rules, but there is a lot of complaints about the arbitrary nature of the coin toss and that impacting the outcome. I think if you remove the coin toss in favor of the initial coin toss - now that becomes a part of team’s strategy from the beginning.

I agree and there is not much you can do. I think the NFL should tie the OT coin toss into the coin toss to start the game. The choices become: 1) Winning team can receive the 1st kick off in the game and in OT. 2) Winning team can defer and choose what they want after halftime, but then the other team gets to decide the opening kickoff and OT. 3) Winning team can choose a direction - allowing the other team to choose to receive or kickoff to start the game and in OT. I believe this would change many teams approach from deferring to receiving the kick off to start the game - so that in the event of OT - they get the ball. It would also then play into the end of game decisions to some degree as teams already know the kick off situation for OT.

To be fair - this is one of the most idiotic and mind bendingly stupid proposals ever made. A team gets to choose ball and the other team chooses the starting position. Why - to what end and why are we again screwing with kickoffs. Just absolutely mental. Their other rule change about an extra “sky official” is much more palatable. It sounds like what the NFL was planning before the preseason went away last year. To be fair - to all the “fans” that want to eliminate preseason- this is reason #1 to keep a minimum of 2 games - even as we add 17 and 18. You need a place to test rule changes in a live environment. The early season injuries is reason 2. The poor defensive play in the first 6-8 weeks is reason #3.

I hate the college rules - it is just as bad as the stupid Hockey OT rules. It is fine the way it is. - adjust the clock if needed.

It will be interesting to see the impact and how teams exploit it to get cheaper contracts for the year, but I doubt this has any impact on the next CBA because that agreement was just signed. The players would need to hold on to this for the next 8 years and that will be nearly impossible. If revenue returns and the new TV deals kick in - next years cap would have been 225-235+ million - it will be slightly lower as the they pull out some for this year. Suddenly every team is going to be flushed with cash and next years FA will be given stupid deals as competition heats up. A few years of that and this cap drop will be a long forgotten nightmare as every position rises with the new contracts.

I have no issue with the current rule. I think about a 0-5% rate is just about right. If you go the the offensive play - make it 4th and 25 and they have to get to their 40 - so the LOS is the 15. Huge penalty if they fail. And the reward is you still need to move the ball to score. I would also limit this option to 1 attempt per game. I Hate this because you would greatly increase the number of collisions and potential helmet to helmet as people are diving and both teams are running for the ball.

I totally agree - I do not think the Bills were not prepared and I do not think the interview process caused them to be less prepared than usual. I do think that with several WRs injured, but trying to go - that impacts and limits what a coach can install and what plays become available during a game. We basically had an entire position group hurting throughout the playoffs. Diggs had his back issue, Brown with the high ankle sprain, Beasley with the broken leg, and Davis with his high ankle sprain. I think the limited aspect of the 4 of them had a bigger impact.

Not sure I agree here - the Bills came out and managed to win 2 playoff games with whatever distractions were going on. The Bills had the same postseason record as KC and played significantly harder teams. The Chiefs fully healthy nearly lost to the Wild card Browns. Were they distracted? Or was it playoff football - which is generally tighter and harder than the regular season. I don’t think KC handled it better - they had the biggest advantage of all - the bye week to get prepared and ready to go.

I don’t think this is a big part of their reasoning. I believe they felt (and both McD and Beane have stated) that they felt their guys were excellent candidates for certain jobs, but the fact that it is difficult to set-up good interviews without a bye and you are eliminating more byes in the playoffs makes it harder for these candidates to get interviews. This year was perfect with very limited interviews for coaches that were not #1 seeds and they struggled to have sound access to be able to move forward. The Bills have a positive growth mindset and want to see their players, coaches, and front office staff become the best they can be and if you keep winning- that gets hurt. I am sure there could be a bit of distraction based concerns as I am sure the interviews and then the uncertainty in both coaching and the players can be distracting, but I think they really thought a guy like Frazier was a great fit for Houston and I am sure the winning and a lack of an available hire date hurts his cause.

I will allow the team to make that decision, but Edmunds on the DL is just about the worst idea I have read. I am sorry OP - I do not want a freak athlete putting on a bunch of weight to play a position that he is not suited to. The biggest complaint is that he has trouble shedding blockers and you want to put him right up against those blockers - just a terrible idea. 🤦‍♂️

First off - if you look at the list and the rules the NFL used with COVID - it was harder for playoff coordinators without a bye to do interviews and there were fewer requests. The number of byes was cut in half due to the set-up - therefore cutting some logical time a guy like Daboll had to interview. Even a guy like Bieniemy, with bye weeks, didn’t interview for all of the requests - COVID limited it. Second - I think given their limited time and the current pandemic and the fact that Daboll is “home” right now - I believe he was looking for a specific situation and some of these playoff coordinators without byes - gave some limited lists of who they might potentially interview with. Third - I think Hapless is spot on - I don’t think his job as OC (running game or not) or his development of JA would hold him back. I do think in some of his previous gigs and even here in Buffalo early - his attitude and his temperament might be more of a concern. He is known to be a fiery and passionate guy that has on more than one occasion said things to the players that in the heat of the moment hurt relationships. It was part of the drive to move him to the press box and get him away from Josh and allow someone else to be with Josh on the sidelines. Those things matter. In the end - I am not surprised by the limited requests and I think Daboll has a plan on his next HC gig - he is looking for a Chargers/Jets type situation with either a very young QB or a very high draft pick that he can mold and his current situation is good - so there is no need to interview with teams like Detroit, Atlanta, or even Philadelphia (with the mess their QBs became). If there is one thing I think McDermott teaches - it is preparation and I would think Daboll was prepared for what interviews he would accept and ultimately what his plan was. We will see, but it is better for us - keep the consistency.