Shaw66
-
Posts
9,888 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
9 minutes ago, VW82 said:
Seems reasonable. I was bracing for 4/100M so 4/78M feels like a decent compromise. I still think Benford has to improve at the line, and until he (or someone else) does we don’t really have a true CB1 shutdown corner.
The Bills aren't in the market for a true shutdown corner. That is not the style that the Bills play. And since they don't particularly want a true shutdown corner, they won't pay the corner they do want at shutdown-corner prices. It's a very convenient for the Bills that the guys they want on the field are not, at least in the defensive backfield, the guys who establish the market.
I think it's the same thing with Rousseau. The big-name flashy, 15-sack per season edge is usually not the guy the Bills want. They want a true all-round DE like Rousseau, who can rush the passer and can stop the run. So they get to sign Rousseau for less than big-name, market-setting guys.
Where I have my doubts about this system is that I think sooner or later the Bills are going to a go-to play maker at some position in addition to Allen. That's not Benford and it's not Rousseau. With luck, it'll be Bosa for a year or two.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:
I'm sure that a bond must be part of it.
But you're almost always going to get some discount when you sign guys this early.
Players are highly aware of what could happen if they don't sign and get injured in the 4th year. Or have a bad year, or whatever. Getting the big payday and a big hunk of cash early is huge for these guys.
But it isn't strictly financial. It's about how good the team is. The same money to play for a dozen other teams isn't nearly as attractive as getting that money to play with Allen and a perennial playoff team.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, HappyDays said:
That's more a function of Beane offering all of his good draft picks early extensions. You will always get a player below their theoretical market value if you give them a contract one year before they hit FA. As a strategy it's hit and miss. Sometimes you wind up with an albatross like Knox's contract, but sometimes you end up with a massive steal like Spencer Brown's contract. I lean towards Benford's looking like a massive steal in two years.
I agree, and it's a bit more than that. It's at the point where it has become the culture. Arguably everyone extended this season could have done better as a free agent in a year. The guys on their first contract are seeing the guys a couple of years ahead of them taking less than top dollar because they want to stay with this team. Those younger guys know that what they're working for is to get offered a long-term deal at maybe less than the market, and they want it. It's an amazing team culture.
-
2
-
1
-
-
The thing about all rankings like this is that they are biased in favor of certain teams over others. In the case of this ranking, it's easy to see how they could have a bias toward good teams. If you have a good team and you pick up Joey Bosa, the commentators think, "home run!" Why? Because the Bills are good and they can see how a talent like Bosa will make them so much better.
No matter whom the Jets sign, the commentators will think they had a bad preseason, because it's hard to see the Jets getting better until there's an answer at QB.
Rankings after the draft are like this, too. Some team that had two first round picks will always be ranked higher than a team that had none. Seems to me, a true ranking of excellence would measure how you did against how much draft capital you started with.
Still, it's nice to know that somebody ranked your team as the best at something.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, JJGauna said:
So how did it compare to opening day at the Colosseum?
Did you know that in the Olympics in ancient Greece the athletes competed naked? I never missed those.
-
2
-
1
-
-
I was and I do.
New Highmark? Maybe.
Oh, and I was at the first regular season game at the Rockpile.
-
12
-
1
-
13
-
-
3 hours ago, Sweats said:
I'm quite certain that the BBMB was shut down because of me.......that forum just wasn't ready for my great insightful football mentality/philosophy that i brought to the table each day.
...........and also, i was a bit of an ass
The man who brought down an empire!
-
There is nothing - NOTHING - about the Bills on the business side of the house that is not about making money. Nothing. The NFL is about making money, and the NFL effectively requires that each of its teams be about making money. Jerry Jones gets richer only if the other 31 teams are getting richer, too.
The owners will not tolerate a team marketing itself by criticizing it's own product. Lexus doesn't do that. Facebook doesn't do that. No successful business organization does that.
Why did the Bills pull the plug on the Buffalo Bills Message Board? Because it didn't make any money. Why did they pull the plug on the Jills? They didn't make any money. The day Steve Tasker starts criticizing the Bills, the Bills will pull the plug on him. Pretty simple, and to expect otherwise is naive.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, longtimebillsfan said:
Hi:
This was not the first game in Rich Stadium. It was the first regular season game.
The first game was vs Washington. On the opening kickoff, Herb Mulkey ran back the kickoff d=for a touchdown.
I was there.
Yes, I am old.
I was there too. I remember nothing about the game.
3 hours ago, JimmyNoodles said:Remember, they gave out a souvenir coin with the stadium on it.
And a card. I still have both.
-
3
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
No
Hah!
No comment?
Or, no, the Bills don't need a high priced back?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:
There's pry some hesitancy with 1st round corner by Bills fans because of Elam not working out and CB being an obvious need going into that draft. T. White did though picking near the end of the 1st round. I'm not sure if that was a Whaley or McDermott pick though. If another potential T. White like corner falls into the mid 20's I could see the Bills moving up.
I can't say you're wrong, but I'm not sure you're right, for a different reason. I don't think it makes sense to count on finding a T White at 27. T. White was a finished product the day he arrived. He got better, sure, but he was a guy the Bills could on the field and they were going to get very good all-round play. That kind of talent typically doesn't fall any more.
But more importantly, as much as they'd certainly love to a true stud corner, I think the Bills would rather have a true stud linebacker or a true stud defensive lineman. A true stud playing in the front seven is in or around the ball on a much higher percentage of the plays than a DB, and being close to the ball has more value to the team. A Myles Garrett or a Chris Jones is much more disruptive to the offense than anyone other that a true stud shut-down corner. And even with a great corner, offenses adjust.
-
1
-
-
I read the title of this thread and thought that Lull was a free agent I should know about. Does he play offense or defense?
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, SoonerBillsFan said:
I get the everybody eats stuff,but when you have a Kincaid etc, then you find a way to scheme them open. So yes quite a bit of it is on Brady.
Actually, I think it works sort of the other way. You design schemes that get everyone open, one guy this play, another guy the next. Then, within that scheme you begin to see opportunities to use your best players' talents to attach more spaces.
I think, for example, that that's how Kelce has caught so many passes. They have schemes to get everyone open, and then they use Kelce's special skills -mostly his brain and understanding of how the offense works, to get to spots on the field from within the scheme. I think, for example, that the difference between Knox and Kincaid is that Kincaid's skills allow him to attack open spots in the defense better than Knox's skills would allow him to do that.
So, it's not creating plays for Kincaid (although there is certainly some of that) as much as it is letting Kincaid's skill take advantage of what's already there. For example, the play call may send the tight end up the seam. Every team will run that pattern, and the Bills have run it with Knox since he's been in Buffalo. But when a healthy Kincaid runs it, he can get separation that Knox can't. Or he can challenge the defense in a way that Knox can't. The Bills will send Knox on that route, and other teams will send their tight ends on that route; it's just Kincaid is the kind of guy who can get more out of the play than the average tight end.
-
2 hours ago, Logic said:
4. Joe Brady, in my opinion, failed to deploy both Kincaid and Knox in ways that best highlighted their respective abilities. As much as I like Brady, one concern I have about him is his ability to use premiere playmakers to their strengths in the passing game. We saw it with Diggs, then Cooper, and in my opinion, we've seen it with both Knox and Kincaid.
I'm not a good enough observer to know any of this for sure, but I think the focus on Brady is correct. I don't think it's limited to premiere playmakers. The intention of this passing game is to, by design, stress the defense so that they can't defend every area on the field. That's how they intend to create opportunities for receivers, premiere or otherwise. By my eyes, that wasn't happening as the season progressed. The easy throws that Allen got earlier in the season evaporated.
I think a lot is on Brady.
-
1
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:
I just don't know if we are committed to this offense if he is ever going to be as good of a fit in it as Dawson Knox. I realise he will not be traded. And it makes 2025 make or break for him. If he makes, great. If he breaks, his value might be lower next offseason. But I understand Beane not wanting to give up on consecutive first round picks in the same offseason. That would not look good on his resume.
Someone said they don't think Kincaid ever will be the focal point of the passing offense. Tight ends essentially never are the focal point. Tight ends are guys who take advantage of opportunities created by the offense. They don't get separation on their own. Even Kelce, pretty much all he does is run to where the open space is. He understands their spacing exquisitely, and he and Mahomes are good at seeing the same opportunities.
In his rookie season, Kincaid showed the ability to be available in the open spaces in the defense. His problems last season may have been injuries, may have been changes in how the Bills were defensed and how Brady adjusted - or failed to adjust - the scheme. What we saw in 2023 was a guy who could be a real weapon in the offense, but he only can do that when he's reasonably healthy and when the wideout passing offense is working effectively. As much as I've been a believer in the "everyone eats" passing scheme, one or some or all of the wideouts collectively have to emerge as downfield passing threats for Kincaid to be the threat Beane, McDermott, and the fans all envisioned when he was drafted.
-
4
-
-
No, he will be a pocket QB like Elway and Roethlisberger. He will not go down like a bag of goose feathers like the goat did.
-
2
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, HappyDays said:
Milano was supposed to make $9.375M base salary in 2026 plus whatever bonuses he was scheduled to make. Almost no chance he is making that on the open market next year. He is also willingly giving up $3.6M in salary this year and is not likely to earn all of it back, as his agent would have made very clear to him.
No player who takes a pay cut is "betting on themselves." Agents would never advise that. They're just accepting the reality that if they get released they're likely to take an even larger pay cut from their next team.
The positive spin about Von taking a pay cut out of the goodness of his heart was a total fabrication. The team knew he was going to be suspended and came to him with a compromise that favored them, and he smartly took it because the alternative was to get cut and make even less money on the open market.
I would think that aphorism doesn't ring true for a 30+ year old player with a vast injury history. Make no mistake - Milano didn't want this, but it was the lesser of two evils.
I hear you, but there's a lot going on in these situations. As we know, the recent trend has been for teams in contention to pick up free agents in October, stars probably past their prime, in the hope that they'll bring a spark to the team at a key position. In Miller's case, I think he really was betting that he'd shine in 2024 and be worth a lot to someone midseason in 2025. If not betting, hoping. Yes, he knew the Bills would cut him, but he was eyeing one more nice pay day, even if it wasn't a mega-contract. A one-year $12 million deal looked pretty nice to Bosa, and I'm sure Miller was hoping he could perform well in 2024 and get a similar one-year deal.
In Milano's case, it's even more true. He knows he's done in Buffalo and is at risk of being cut now if he doesn't redo his deal, he believes he still can play, and the chances of his catching on with a team and getting another nice deal. He also wants to stay with the Bills this season to have a run at a championship. If he has a good season, being a free agent next year is much better than in two years.
All three guys - Miller, Taylor, Milano, were being told "you aren't worth what we promised to pay you, so much so that it makes sense for us to let you go now than keep you." All three believed in themselves and believed that the best way to collect another big check was to restructure. They all did it because playing in the current year made more sense than getting cut, because all three were coming of seasons that would limit their value in the market. All three were betting they'd have a good final year with the Bills and they'd capitalize on it in free agency in a year.
So, sure, they don't like the message that they'll be cut sooner rather than later, but under that circumstance, the best move is to play one more year, count on making it a good one, and then hit free agency. Getting cut immediately, after a weak season, hurts them in free agency. In that sense, they're betting on themselves, because the plan depends on their having a good current season.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:
That's the usual positive spin given by the player side, just like with Von last year. The truth though is that Beane approaches the player and their agent and says something to the effect of "we don't want to cut you, but we will have to under your current numbers" and then they try to find a compromise that works for both sides. The player knows if they get cut they're likely to make even less than the compromise number. The team knows it will be hard to find a replacement player while also paying the dead cap. So it's a give and take from both sides. If you want to phrase it harshly, the team basically tells the player "if you don't rip up your current deal and willingly take less money than we signed you for, you're on your own."
By the way when fans get on James Cook or other players for using hardball tactics or not "playing on the contract they signed," I hope they realize teams do this kind of thing all the time. I don't begrudge either side for it. The initial contract signed is a framework, not a lifetime guarantee. It's a brutal business with players trying to maximize a short career and teams trying to maximize a short championship window.
I think this is the same thing they did with Miller last season. It's kind of surprising to see players put money back on the table, but it happens. As someone said, it's the player betting on himself to make the money back in incentives and to be able to hit the market once more while they may still have some gas in the tank. Tyrod Taylor did it with the Bills, too. He left a lot of guaranteed money on the table, but he was betting that his performance in the short term would be good enough to make him a lot of money in the market. Turned out, he was wrong - he never made up the money that he would have been paid by the Bills. Still, I talked to a sports agent friend of mine who said that from the player's point of view, your objective is to be a free agent as often as possible, because every time you're a free agent it's another chance for a big pay day.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Einstein's Dog said:
Shaw, I'm with you on Benford being good and extremely good piece as used by the Bills.
But the FO has to consider health issues when making this deal. It's a huge risk to the organization.
And it's a huge risk to Benford to turn down a large chunk of guaranteed money with his concussion history.
The health issue may be hard to quantify but the FO and Benford need to do it.
Oh, I wasn't clear. I agree completely that the health question is critical in making the deal. What I meant was I wasn't going to talk about the health issue. I just wanted to talk about the fact that guys are valued differently by different teams because of how the player's talents fit the team. Benford is a really good all-round corner, which is exactly what the Bills want.
Benford is like Rousseau, Oliver, Bernard, Milano, Poyer, and Hyde. They're all guys who are really good at their position, really good, but not explosive play makers, not All-Pros. And all you need is one of those All-Pros. So the question is do you get rid of Oliver because maybe the next DT will be better? No, he's too good. You have to hope the real stud will show up at some other position. Same with Rousseau. And I think it's the same with Benford. He's too good not to keep. But only at a price that properly reflects the injury risk, if there is one.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, sven233 said:
All that said, I watch him and I never see "Best in the League" out of him. No, I am not saying others view him as the best in the league by any measure, but I think that is my point. The numbers say he is in the conversation, but the eye test to me says I don't see a shut down CB deserving of top dollar like he is probably going to get. He is very good at covering guys down the sidelines and in zone. In fact, I will say he is elite at those things. But where my issue with him is when he is lined up against WRs that are great slant runners and when other teams get him running across the field on drag routes. I've seen him get abused on slants, drags, and crossers and it is because he is not a quick twitch guy and doesn't have top end speed to recover when he does get beat cleanly. I will say those routes are hard to cover no matter who you are, but there are those guys that just can throw a blanket over the entire field no matter who they are covering and what routes they are covering even when being asked to do it in mostly man situations. Our scheme plays to Benford's strengths, as it should, but because of that he is not asked to play primarily man coverage for most snaps like other teams ask some of these other top CBs to do against the top WRs in the league. He also very rarely has been asked to travel with a top WR and cover them for an entire game. The Bills primarily ask him to line up on his side and whoever the other team throws over there is the guy he covers. He's not being asked to find WR1 and just shadow him for entire games like the top shut down CBs many times do.
Now I don't want this to look like I am bashing the guy. I am absolutely not doing that. I think Benford is a top CB in this league. Borderline top 5 even. I guess the only point I am trying to make is that I'm struggling to give him money like Stingley just got because I don't view him in the same class as he is. I think he's great and our scheme has played to his strengths which is obviously important. I guess the question I have is if you swapped Benford for a guy like Stingley on a different team if he would have the same success in a different system. If he was forced to be a true lockdown CB in a man to man system, could he do it consistently? I'm just not sure he could. But, I know Stingley would still be a shut down CB here.
Well, I left out your discussion about health, because that's kind of imponderable. It's just very hard to know what his concussion risk is going forward.
But the rest of your discussion fails to recognize an important point: players are worth more to some teams, less to others.
You mention that the Bills scheme plays to Benford's strengths, but then you go on to say he isn't worth top money because he isn't a great shut-down corner. Well, the fact that he isn't an elite shut-down corner should be important to teams that are looking for a shut-down corner, but the Bills aren't. They had Tre White, who in his prime was a top-five shut-down corner, but the Bills didn't use him as that on a regular basis. They required him to play in the scheme, which meant that often he was in zone or he had mixed responsibilities. Most games, he did not switch sides in order to be locked onto the opponent's number one receiver.
A player's value to a his team is based on his skills and the team's needs. What the Bills need is someone who, it turns out, happens to be pretty much exactly what Benford is. It would be nice if Benford had elite shut-down skills, but that would only be a little icing on the cake. What the Bills need is what he offers. That means he's very valuable - and he's tough to replace. The Bills took Elam to be a stud number 1 corner in the Bills system, and they found out how hard it is to find the right guy in the draft. They happened to find the right guy several rounds later.
Unless they're being dumb and making a mistake, teams that need a shut-down corner won't pay Benford at the top of the market. He'll find that out when he shops himself (his agent is already doing it, informally). But even if the Bills have to pay top dollar to keep him, it wouldn't be a bad move, because he is exactly the guy they want and need at cornerback. It's really hard to compete at the top of the league if you don't have the players, and Benford is exactly the right player for the Bills' defense.
-
39 minutes ago, DapperCam said:
A couple years ago maybe. Douglas was terrible this past season. He hasn’t been signed and might not even be on a team this season.He wasn't terrible last year.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Utah John said:
Benford didn't get targeted much because the Bills' other CB was always worse, with Douglas struggling at times and Elam a train wreck. Of course other teams looked the other way.
That's not right. EVERY team has a better and worse corner. That doesn't mean that teams don't attack the stronger corner. There are only certain corners who don't get targeted. And most teams would have loved having Douglas as their #2 corner.
-
1
-
-
I just said this in the Stingley thread; probably should have been here.
I know what I see and don't. I see him around the ball all the time. I see him break up passes. I see him be a solid, aggressive tackler in the run game. I don't see him getting beaten and I don't see him missing assignments or tackles.
I think he's a cornerstone defensive back, the equivalent of Tre White. Solid, all-round football player and defensive back who secures one side of the field for his team. He may not be a truly elite cover guy, but he is elite in this defense.
I think the Bills will be forced to match the market on him. Some team probably will overpay him, and that's what the Bills will need to match.
I think he's a great piece of the backfield puzzle for the next five years. I think if the Bills can afford only to keep one and to lose one, they'll lose Cook and keep Benford.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:
Really???
How much game film do you watch? How many times have you seen Benford get burned or even targeted over the years?
I don't watch film but trust the guys who do like Joe Marino, Nate Tice, Bruce Nolan and Robert Mayes. Those guys all think he's somewhere in the range of really good to Elite.
Benford's camp was smart to hold out. His price range is probably somewhere between $25-$30m AAV
I don't know what the right price is, but I agree with your analysis.
I don't watch film, either, and I haven't heard what the amateur Bills experts are saying, but I know what I see and don't. I see him around the ball all the time. I see him break up passes. I see him be a solid, aggressive tackler in the run game. I don't see him getting beaten and I don't see him missing assignments or tackles.
I think he's a cornerstone defensive back, the equivalent of Tre White. Solid, all-round football player and defensive back who secures one side of the field for his team. He may not be a truly elite cover guy, but he is elite in this defense.
I think the Bills will be forced to match the market on him. Some team probably will overpay him, and that's what the Bills will need to match.
I think he's a great piece of the backfield puzzle for the next five years. I think if the Bills can afford only to keep one and to lose one, they'll lose Cook and keep Benford.
-
2
-
Benford Extended 4 Years - 76 million
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
But there is a reason not to acquire an elite shutdown corner. A couple of them. Principally, McDermott's defense is designed to ask the corner to be an all-around. If he could, McDermott would have three Taron Johnsons. They won't change the defense to play a corner on an island because they have a player who's good at it. The second reason is that they want to keep the guys they draft, and if they draft a star corner, he'll leave after his first contract, because he's worth more to a team that does want to do what you say. Different coaches, but Gilmore left because the Bills didn't want true shutdown talent and Belichick did.
They do it for Bosa because McDermott is as adamant about rushing four as he is about his corners being powerful run-support players. So, when the Bills go to the market for an edge, the guy has to be able to get to the quarterback. That's what every team wants, so the Bills are forced to pay the price for premier talent. At corner, on the other hand, the McDermott scheme makes it possible to fill the defensive backfield without paying premium prices, because the Bills don't build around a premier cover corner.