Shaw66
-
Posts
9,871 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
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
-
-
17 minutes ago, tigerthelion said:
Yeah, but just think of all the gaudy stats Burrow will put up. Burrow knows the team will be lucky to field a decent defense, but he will get his numbers and analysts will talk about how his defense let him down. The year Cincy had a good defense, that showed up in the playoffs, they went to the Super Bowl. Go figure.
It's just so tempting, when you find yourself with two receivers like that and a QB with an arm and great accuracy.
Defensive strategies the Bengals will see:
1. Blistering pass rush to make it tough to have the time to go deep. Burrow is going to get hit a lot.
2. Two-deep safeties.
3. Other strategies to stop the pass.
If the Bengals spend any money on the offensive line, it will be for pass protectors, because if they can't protect Burrow, they will have wasted their money on receivers. In other words, the Bengals almost certainly will have poor run blockers, and they showed a year ago they wouldn't pay a quality running back like Mixon.
All of which means they're forcing themselves to be one-dimensional, and one-dimensional doesn't work in the NFL.
-
This is the exact opposite of what Beane and McDermott.
The Bengals have put all their eggs in one basket - the explosive passing offense basket. They are forcing themselves to be one dimensional, or to try to be balanced without the personnel to have an effective running game.
There's a reason teams in the NFL don't have two #1 receivers. Bengals didn't get the memo.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:
He is dreadful.
Oh, great.
I trust your judgment, so I'm way less than excited about this one.
Still, I gotta believe he's better than dreadful. Bills must see something there, some potential. Can he return kicks?
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:
Even Roseman makes mistakes: Jalen Reagor over jefferson, Wentz extension, agholor, even Huff last year - there's a ton of examples. The key is trusting your eyes in practice and on film, and not waiting too long to make changes and continue to add players to valued position groups.
Thanks for this; it follows on what BeckWater said. Everyone makes mistakes. It's amazing that with all the work the GMs and their staff do, they still miss on plenty of players. From our perspective, it seems easy, but in truth it really is more art than science.
And there's one related thought about GM performance in the draft. People are after Beane because he hasn't hit on any real game changer other than Allen. (As an aside, it's important to remember the magnificent job Beane did trading up and up to get to the place he needed to be to have a shot at Allen. That alone was masterful, and then to have been so right about Allen - amazing.) But as others have noted, you aren't finding game changers drafting 30th every year. Once in a while there's a game changer there, but it's an accident when you hit one. All you can do is keep drafting the Rousseau's and the Kincaids and hope that you get lucky and some guy turns into a HOF talent that 20 GMs missed on.
-
1
-
-
54 minutes ago, Logic said:
Thanks, Shaw.
I share your view that Beane's record in the 1st and 2nd rounds hasn't been very good. On the other hand, in the mid to late rounds, it HAS been very good. Better than average, I'd say. Christian Benford, Terrel Bernard, Khalil Shakir, Spencer Brown -- some very good players taken in round three or later.I agree that the Elam miss was enormous. HOWEVER...I'd suggest it's probably the only outright bust the Bills have drafted in round one under Brandon Beane. Some other players like Tremaine Edmunds haven't seen second contracts here, but they're still in the league and still producing at some level. Elam stands out as probably the darkest spot on Beane's draft resume.
That said, if we're going to ding him for missing in Elam, it's only fair to also give him credit for hitting on Christian Benford in round six. The Bills needed to find a good corner in that draft, and they did. Just not in the 1st round like everyone imagined it would be. I don't think it's easy to find a player in the 6th round who is as good as Benford, a guy who has arguably become one of the top ten corners in the league. So yes, we should hold Beane accountable for his early misses, but we should also celebrate his mid to late hits.
Re-signing, re-structuring, and handling the financial aspects of the team is also an important aspect of GMing, and on that front, I'd list Beane as better than most. He routinely gets ahead of the market, signs players to team friendly deals, and rarely lets his best players walk out of the building or get into ugly, public contract standoffs.
Lastly, he has overseen the construction of a roster that has the 2nd most wins in the league since 2020, has won six straight division titles, and is a championship contender every single year. I'd argue that if not for some McDermott coaching blunders and if not for the HOF Mahomes/Reid duo, he'd have collected one or two Lombardis by now.
All in all, I share your view that Beane needs to step up his game in rounds one and two, and Kaiir Elam is a glaring example of that. But his great work in the mid to late rounds of the draft, excellent work with contracts and player retention, and the consistent winning nature of the team he oversees all point to a very good GM.Quoting you only to say I agree completely with this. I like his mid- to late-round work and what he does in free agency. I think this free-agency period is a good example. Nice, solid work.
Cap management also has been solid. Some argued that the major cuts in his second year, the cuts that put the Bills in serious cap-hell, weren't necessary, but at least there was some logic to what he did that season, and what he did since that restart has been excellent.
And one final point - his roster-building has to be considered in light of his desire to give McDermott the kind of players McDermott wants. Beane's done that exceptionally well (except for Elam).
-
1
-
-
I haven't read this thread, at least not very much.
From the standpoint of March 2025, this was a good deal for the Bills. Elam was going nowhere in the organization, and getting anything for him rather than having him occupy a roster spot is a good thing. (And as an aside, Jerry Jones might be the only GM in the league who would be willing to pay anything for Elam.)
From the standpoint of Elam as a first-round draft pick, he's about as big a busted pick as is possible. My view is that a late-first round pick needs to be a starter by his second season. It may very from position to position (a first-round running back has to be getting a lot of touches as a rookie or he's probably a mistake), but at most positions, if the guy isn't starting by his second season, something is wrong. Elam essentially never sniffed starting, unless he was more or less the only choice.
He's been discussed before. A guy with cover skills who hadn't shown a lot of the DB skills that McDermott values - playing complex defenses, including a variety of zone schemes, and an effective and aggressive tackler in the running game. It is unquestionable that Beane and his staff knew these things about him, because all of the public scouting reports at the time said exactly that. I'm assuming the Bills interviewed him before the draft, and they probably interviewed some of his coaches, and somehow they believed the Elam just needed to be taught and coached. They made a colossally bad judgment of who Elam is and what he could become.
I like Beane, and my gut says he does a good job. But my own keys to whether the GM is a keeper focus on three things: 1. Did they hire the right coach? 2. Did they find the right QB? 3. Did they get starters with their first- and second-round picks? Beane never was tested on 1., got 2. right, and has underperformed on 3. Obviously, Elam lowers his grade on the third point, big-time (but it's sort of offset by the Josh-Allen homerun). Rousseau's a solid starter, Kincaid has underperformed, Oliver is a solid starter, Coleman's too early to tell. Beyond those three major categories, he seems to do a good job in the later rounds. Cook and Torrence are nice second-round gets, and Beane's done nicely in the mid- and late-rounds.
How big a mistake was Elam? Well, just imagine what could have been done instead drafting Elam. Take the picks they used to get him, and trade them for a first round pick in the draft the following year. The Bills would have had two first-round picks - maybe they could have packaged them to move up. Maybe they could have gotten another quality starter. Maybe, maybe, maybe. First-round picks are opportunities, and Elam was complete missed opportunity.
In free agency, Beane has made few major moves except for Miller, but as he's often said, free-agency is for filling holes, not for bringing in talent. Talent comes in the draft. And one reason the Bills seem to have little cap room every year is that, consistent with their philosophy, they spend their money to keep their talent, not to acquire new talent.
How the Bills do in 2025 will depend a lot on Beane. In particular, the Bills could be much better than 2024 if Kincaid, Coleman, and Bishop become valuable and effective starters, which none of them were in 2024. If Bishop is who they hoped, he'll anchor the pass defense with Rapp or Forrest. If Bosa is who we hope, a consistent pass rushing edge, the Bills can make the rest of the defense work. And if Beane can add a solid starter, somewhere, anywhere in the lineup, with the 2025 first round pick, the Bills will be loaded. (Yeah, yeah, there's still Benford and Cook, but there'll be solutions. I think the Bills keep both.)
Bottom line on Elam and Beane: A blown first-round pick really is a black mark on any GM's resume, and it's a black mark on Beane's. But everyone makes mistakes; Elam was one of his biggest.
-
3
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Since1981 said:
It does appear to be a retry of spaghetti on the safety wall and see if a pair sticks.
Yes, but more than spaghetti. They have two guys with the potential to be a solid pair or better. They will be pleased but not surprised if the pasta sticks.
-
20 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:
You are not grumpy, you're just being accurate as to what they are today. But where I would counter with some optimism, is 2 of our safeties have potential to be more than that in Bishop and Forrest.
It's sort of like the way it works is Beane and McDermott keep throwing guys out there who have the potential to do what McDermott wants, and they will keep doing it until they find guys who can do it. That's what happened with Hyde and Poyer and that's what they've tried with Rapp and that's now what they're trying with Forrest and Bishop. That's two decent safeties, and maybe more.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:
You are not grumpy, you're just being accurate as to what they are today. But where I would counter with some optimism, is 2 of our safeties have potential to be more than that in Bishop and Forrest.
Exactly.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, oldmanfan said:
Brandon has a history of plugging holes in free agency so he doesn’t have obvious gaps going into the draft. We needed a pass rusher, he gets Bosa. A bigger outside WR? Palmer. Gets Hoechst to bolster the D line.
I expect we’ll see a CB added in the next couple days, maybe bring back Douglas. I expect a big DT to be added. And that will probably be it. Some are thinking safety but I think they’re good with Rapp and Bishop as starters. I also think they redo Benford but maybe not Cook yet.
So going into the draft Brandon won’t feel forced into focusing on a specific position. I do think he’ll be looking at the big DTs; might just be bias on my part because I always want them to draft a big pile of goo to anchor the D line. I could see him moving up for a guy like Grant in round 1.
Good stuff, Fan. Write on the money. And right on q, the bills signed the defensive tackle you were talking about.
Bean has often said that free agency is for plugging holes and the draft is for acquiring talent, and that is exactly what we're seeing again this year.
-
3
-
-
9 minutes ago, BuffaloBillsGospel2014 said:
Samuel is a poor tackler which is why he’s most likely still available and asking for a boatload.
No poor tacklers need apply.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Virgil said:
There was a fake account out there saying that the Bills are in on a bidding war for Samuel. I do find it interesting that Samuel and Douglas have not found teams yet.
I expect a few 1-year deal depth guys, but nothing crazy, unless Beane has a trade up his sleeve.
Seems like every year there are two or three corners who remain on the market longer than I would expect.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Starr Almighty said:
There's no way you don't know Carmelo Anthony.
I didn't know it was Carmello. He was pretty good. Who were the other two?
-
I found this very interesting on a lot of fronts. Essay follows.
I didn't hear the McDermott or Beane post-season press conferences, but I understand from threads here that one or both commented that Keon didn't come back from his injury with the attitude that he needed to be an impact player.
I heard Keon saying sort of the same thing, except that the way he presented it sounded like he learned the lesson quickly. I gather McBeane said he didn't learn the lesson until the season ended and they told him he needed to get his back on straight. I don't hold it against Keon for putting a more positive spin on the situation while talking to a public audience.
It highlights one of the problems from going from college to the pros. If you're Keon Coleman and you get injured in college, regardless of how the team may have adjusted while you're out, you're so good that when you come back, the team immediately adjusts back to making you the key player. Why? Because you're so good compared to the competition that going back to what you do is almost always better than however the team adjusted.
In the pros, it doesn't work that way unless you're LaMarr Chase or Justin Jefferson or one or two others. Most of the rest of the receivers in the pros were stars in college, but in the pros injured guys have to earn their way into the lineup, every week. Why? Because the adjusted lineup is usually just as good as the lineup when they were in it, and there's no reason to switch back just because they're available again. Especially when, as Keon said, you're on a good team.
Keon didn't understand that when he was coming back. He had this inflated of view of himself that was reinforced because he had had a couple of good games. He thought he'd earned an automatic reentry into the lineup because he was headed toward a 1000 yard-season. When he didn't get back into the rotation, apparently instead of doubling down to do whatever he could to force his way into the lineup, he stalled.
We hope he learned that lesson.
There are a lot of interesting things about this situation. One is that he said his goals are yards, receptions, TDs and the Super Bowl. He won't be all that he can be for the Bills until he forgets the yards, receptions, TD part. All that matters is winning, and that means that individual stats don't matter. Period. I'd guess that if you asked Shakir how he'd feel about starting, having season stats of zero catches for zero yards and zero TDs and winning a Super Bowl ring, he would say without hesitation, "sign me up." He'd say that because he understands that if he's good enough to start, then whatever he's doing is contributing to the team's success. Keon needs to get there.
Another interesting thing is how this demonstrates the in-season effectiveness of McDermott's philosophy. When you play the game without stars, when you learn to win without stars, then you can survive injuries much more easily. Keon Coleman gets injured, and within a week the offense has adjusted with other non-stars and keeps producing without him. Not so good in the post-season, because teams are good at managing the injuries of their top players and making it likely that their stars will be in the lineup in the playoffs. That means the Bills are playing against a talent differential in the playoffs, something we've seen.
It also demonstrates that players have to keep improving. Keon needed, while he was recovering from his injury and when he came back, to be focused on doing whatever was necessary to get back into the lineup, not to be focused on whatever he was doing six weeks earlier or what he wanted to accomplish six weeks from now. All the time, continuous improvement, as McDermott would say. That's what I would guess McDermott thinks Keon lost when he got injured. That's what Keon meant when he said, "be where your feet are." His feet are here, now, and all that matters is what he is doing here and now to be the player the team needs.
I heard JJ Reddick say that a vet told him after his rookie season in the NBA that he needed to spend the off-season learning to do something to improve his game that he can't do now, and that he needed to do that every off-season if he wanted to stay in the league. Keon can be a JJ Reddick type player - excellent role-playing starter, but to be that player he needs to keep getting better. He seems to have lost sight of that after he got injured.
This situation also makes it clear what McBeane are thinking when they say they want competitors, serious, fierce competitors. Competitors play, in practice and in games, like each play is the most important play in the world. And that's what I found most disappointing about Keon, all season long. He may be able to outjump defenders to make the catch, but I didn't see him outfight many defenders. If he had been outfighting defenders for the ball when he came back from his injury, he would have seen more playing time.
Keon is a thoughtful guy. I hope he will take a big step forward as the result of this experience.
-
8
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Low Positive said:
Yes and no. I would tell you all about it, but I've got to run to a high-level business meeting.
Oh, man, out of the BLUE!!! Great job!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, HappyDays said:
Joe Marino's text about him is that he's been a stand up EDGE in a 3-4 so kind of a weird fit for us. He projects him as the Dawuane Smoot role but that's a big raise for that role. From other things I'm reading he's been used in coverage more than the typical EDGE. So somewhat of a hybrid/positionless player that we can use as a chess piece.
FWIW PFF graded him as the 104th best EDGE in 2024 with a 61.3 grade. As a pass rusher 60.3, as a run defender 73.5.
My initial though is it seems like a substantial overpay but I don't have a strong opinion on it. Given how much they're paying they presumably have a plan so we'll see how they use him.
I don't know the guy, but everyone knows the Bills need pass rush. They must see opportunities to use him to create mismatches across the line.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Logic said:
Fair enough.
From my perspective, it'd be nice to add a difference maker on offense AND defense. I realize that's easier said than done, of course.
When it came down to crunch time -- by which I mean the AFCCG -- I didn't see any offensive players other than Josh Allen stepping up and elevating the offense. In those "gotta have it" moments, I'm not sure who the no-doubt-about-it go-to playmaker on this team is. There doesn't seem to be one at the present moment.
Case in point: not a single receiver or tight end on the Bills roster had over 1,000 yards last year. And yes, I know, "everybody eats", but...still.
And before anyone says "they set a team record for points scored last year": Yes, I know. But if you asked Sean McDermott or Brandon Beane or Joe Brady, I bet each of them would tell you it's a goal this offseason to improve the offense. It's a new year, and last year is in the past, and there's no guarantee they'll replicate their success.
I still feel the Bills offense is a true WR1 away from being "complete", and I don't think Palmer addresses that issue. He seems to be of the John Brown, Curtis Samuel, Mack Hollins ilk, which is to say: a functional NFL receiver that doesn't elevate the Bills offense or scare the opposing defense.I don't know Palmer, but from what I've read here, it sounds like he's likely to stick and fit in well with the philosophy the Bills ran last season in the passing game. Sounds like he may be an upgrade.
I hear what you're saying about a true difference maker at receiver - I've talked here often about the need for a few difference makers, guys who make plays when you really need them.
Actually, I think the Bills have plenty of them, just not stud difference makers. The reason the offense was so good was precisely because at different times, different guys made a difference. Cook, Johnson, Davis in the backfield, and Cooper, Hollins, Shakir, Coleman all made some big plays (and we're hoping Kicaid will) and the offense scored a lot. What you mean is a stud guy who seems to make the plays at the biggest moments. The plays we expected Diggs to make, the plays we expected Miller to make.
I'm not so sure that stud guy is so important. I think he absolutely is necessary on defense. Milano kind of was that guy, but not since his injury. Miller was supposed to be. Oliver and Rousseau are solid difference makers, but haven't elevated their game to stud level. I think the Bills need one of those guys on defense.
But on offense, the passing game is a team concept. The Bills' approach is to have several guys on the field who challenge you in the passing game, every play. And they keep changing which guys and which combinations are on the field, and they keep tinkering with and evolving scheme, the whole point of which is to create momentary advantages that non-stud difference makers can take advantage of. If the coaches believe in that approach, if they thing it gives them an edge, then McBeane aren't going to be spending big dollars to get a stud. That is, in this passing scheme, the added value of a stud may not be worth the cost to get him.
-
3
-
Matt Milano agrees to pay cut, 2025 becomes final year of his deal
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
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.