Shaw66

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.

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.

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.

Did you know that in the Olympics in ancient Greece the athletes competed naked? I never missed those.

I was and I do. New Highmark? Maybe. Oh, and I was at the first regular season game at the Rockpile.

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.

I was there too. I remember nothing about the game. And a card. I still have both.

Hah! No comment? Or, no, the Bills don't need a high priced back?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

He wasn't terrible last year.

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.

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.

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.

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.