Shaw66

You don't have to convince me about Cousins. It took me a long time, but I've come around to him. I don't like the idea of taking a flyer on a rookie if you don't have to. I think Cousins is a guy who will continue to get better, if he's in a good system and a stable environment. He's a student, he works hard and he's committed to learning more and more. He's shown he has the basics that Tyrod hasn't grown into - quick decision making, willingness to throw into tight coverages, etc., and he's consistently put up good numbers doing it. I think he'll continue to get better over the next five years. He believes in system and process, which makes him a perfect fit for McDermott. And, as someone pointed out in some Cousins discussion, when Brady, Brees, Ben and Rivers retire (all probably in the next three seasons), who are the top 10 QBs going to be? Cousins is probably in that group, because for him NOT to be in that group a lot of guys have to prove they belong their long-term: Wentz, Carr, Stafford, Bridgewater, Newton, Garropolo, Goff. Would I take some of those guys over Cousins? Sure, because some seem to have better upside. But the others aren't available, and Cousins looks like a good bet. So, yeah, Cousins. And Horned Dogs says it's doable under the cap. I'd love it.

I understand, but you're doing exactly what I said you shouldn't do. Don't look at Glenn; look at the total number cap space and draft picks with him and without him. That's what I think Beane and McD are doing. I think Beane and McD start fro the assumption that there are very few irreplaceable players. Your QB, if you have a good one. Your MLB, if you have a HOF guy. One or two, here or there. Why do I think that? Because they already showed they don't think Gilmore, Watkins or Dareus was irreplaceable, and those guys were taken tenth, third and third in the draft. They're serious NFL talent, and they weren't afraid to let them go. It isn't about whether they like Glenn or whether he can be useful. They're view is he's replaceable. If they get cap room and/or picks by moving him, and if that combination of cap room and picks allows them to get a replacement tackle AND have something left over to use on another player, I think they'll do it. And it doesn't have to be a replacement who's as good as Glenn, at least not right now. Why? Because the difference between Glenn and his replacement doesn't make that much difference in the outcome of games. Glenn's not irreplaceable.

It's clear that Beane and McD are NOT INTERESTED in high-priced talent. They have a different philosophy. They still might break the bank on a star here or there, but they are focused on lower-cost good, young talent. They're focused on the draft. Watkins, Dareus and Gilmore were the three high-priced guys, special-talent guys on the roster (other than McCoy). They unloaded all three within their first year on the job. Beane's said that the way to get good players most cheaply is through the draft, not through free agency. Glenn isn't a truly special talent, but he's up there. And he comes with a really high price tag. So I think he has a bulls-eye on his back.

The link doesn't show your outcome and I don't want to try to recreate it. I assume you're saying this works within the cap. If so, you're on exactly the page I'm on. I don't know the rules about trades of players for picks, but assuming such trades are possible this time of year, I think Tyrod or Cordy could be traded, which might give a little less cap relief but add a pick or two. I think Cousins is the only free agent QB who has a good chance of turning out to be a long-term (5+ years) solution; if Beane and McD think he is, I wouldn't be surprised to see them follow your formula. If they don't like Cousins, then I'd think they'll be more likely to try trade to get more picks, either to move up for a QB or just to get further down the road on restructuring the way they want.

Why the cut? My guess is that he's gone, one way (cut) or the other (trade). Why is he gone? Because it's now completely clear that Beane and McD want a team with their kind of guys. That means a lot of changes. Obviously, we've seen it already, and it's likely that we'll continue to see it. Think for a minute what that means in terms of acquiring new players. Don't focus on who might be leaving, just focus on how to acquire new players. To do that, you need capital. There are two kinds of capital: draft choices and cap room. So I'm guessing the way Beane is looking at his job right now is to find ways to build capital so that he can get new players. So in the case of Glenn, the question for Beane and McD is NOT whether Glenn is their kind of player. The question is whether they can use Glenn to increase their capital. The answer to that is yes. They can get a lot of cap room by cutting him. Trading him also gets them cap room, but less, but it also gets them a pick. Yes, you create a hole if you move on from Glenn, but you already have Dawkins filling that hole, and you can get another lineman with some of the cap room you've created or with the pick you acquired. It's a net win to move Glenn. Wood retiring creates a new hole to fill, which means the Bills need MORE capital, which means moving Glenn is more likely today than it was when the season ended.

Thanks for talking about the big picture. (I actually hope they do sign Cousins, but that's beside the point.) The point is that it often is the case that new regime makes changes, and changes cost money. I will remember for a long time Whaley talking about the fact that there's enough cap room to have six core players, and he thought he had them in Taylor, Sammy, Glenn, Hughes, Gilmore and Dareus. McCoy was an added bonus. Whaley believed the Bills were going to win with those core players and with some improved talent on the rest of the roster. Then Beane and McDermott came in and didn't want Sammy, Gilmore or Dareus. They probably don't want Taylor. They may not want Glenn at his pricetag. When the new regime is that fundamentally unhappy with the core players that the previous regime spent all the cap money on, you have to assume that you're going to be stressed in the cap department until they can flush those contracts out of the system. You can't expect the new regime to just let the contracts play out, because that means they're trying to win with players that don't fit their philosophy. I wonder if the Pegulas and Whaley understood that McD was going to want this kind of turnover when they hired him. And if McD wasn't clear about it, I wonder if the Pegulas understood that Beane certainly was going to do it this way. I tend to think they did, because everything I've seen suggests to me that the Pegulas intend to let McD and Beane have the time they need to get the team running the way they want it.

I think you're ignoring a fundamental point: Beane has been very clear that he believes (and I agree) that the best place to get talent at the lowest cost is in the draft. I think McDermott is on board with that, too. I think McDermott believes that he can teach guys to what they need to do, guys like Milano and Thompson and others. So McD is happy to get a bunch of guys out of the draft, if they have talent. That means, I think, that Wood's retirement means it's MORE likely that the Bills will trade another player or two for picks. If you have more holes to fill, it's more important to go to the place where you can get talent cheap, and that's in the draft. It also makes it, I think, MORE likely that the Bills will be willing to spend cap room on a QB, if there is one they really want (Cousins, Bridgewater, Bradford, Keenum), because that's the one position where cheap talent isn't the best way to go. So, for example, Wood retiring makes it more likely that the Bills will trade Glenn for a pick. If I have it right, he will cost the Bills $14 million in cap space to keep him and $11 million if they trade him. The Bills have Dawkins to play left tackle, they seem at least satisfied with Mills on the right. If they can trade Glenn for, say, a third round pick, they save $3 million in cap space (making it easier to sign a QB). Then they can use a first round pick to get a quality center, if there is one in the draft, and use the third round pick they get for Glenn to draft another olineman to groom.

Well, it's just semantics. A bridge is about the future - who's the QB who will get us to the future. Peyton wasn't a bridge. As you say, he was win-now move. Peyton wasn't in their future. I think we agree. Doesn't make sense to pay much of anything for a true bridge. Does make sense to pay for the future, and it does make sense to pay for win now. Right, and that's why the evaluation of Cousins is so critical. If Cousins is a top 10 QB for the next ten years, he's worth spending money on. If he's top 15 or top 20, he isn't. It's all about what Beane and McD see in the guy, and about what they see in some rookie they like.

I think you have this completely backward. First, every team lets free agents walk. The reality is that the best bargains in talent are coming out of college. The quality of their play compared to their cost is much better. So the smart teams often let guys walk after their rookie contracts. It's the coaches' jobs to get good play out of rookies and second year guys. The smart free agent moves are NOT signing the high priced guys in the first week. The smart are signing the guys available in June and even July, guys with experience in the league who fit what the coach is trying to do. Beane's been very clear about this since the day he arrived. He believes you build the team with young players out of college, not with players you acquire in free agency. I think the Bill's did their serious house cleaning this year and now they start building. That means they'll start acquiring players they want. Some of those will cause some other guys to leave, like in the linebacker corps, and the offensive and defensive lines. But that will be upgrades, not tanking.

I don't agree about Cousins, but that isn't the point. I get that some people don't think that he's worth what he'll get. My point was they are two different cases. If you want Cousins, it's because you've decided to bet on him for the future. If you want Smith, it's because you've decided you need a bridge for the future. If all you're looking for is a bridge, there's no point in paying more than you'd pay to keep Taylor, because either way you're going to have a QB you don't expect can be a big winner for you. If you're looking for a guy who's your future, you should expect to pay more, whether it's more cash (in the case of Cousins) or more draft picks (in the case of one of the top rookies).

Actually, as I look at the numbers, it may be that in actual cash Smith wouldn't cost much more than Taylor, but there'd be cap hit to make the move. I think Smith would strictly be a bridge, and for the one year he'd be used, I don't think it's worth paying any cash or cap space to get him. Plus you'd have to give up a pick to do it. Cousins isn't strictly a bridge. You'd get him thinking he's the future unless you find someone better. That's worth paying for.

I think if you're trading up to the top of the draft, you keep Taylor and don't sign another veteran. Reason? You're betting the farm on the new QB, and you're going to play him in 2019, if not 2018. So you may as well have the cheapest alternative veteran, and that's Tyrod. No point in giving Smith a three-year deal (which is what he'll want), because it costs too much money. If you've traded up to the top, you won't have good picks left, so you'll need cap room to sign free agents. Then what are you doing here? If you've read this thread before and you remember it, good for you. If you want to read it again, great. If not, great. Other people may not have read this thread before, or they may want to read it again. Was it really necessary that you tell us YOU'VE read it before?

I agree with the difference between top 5 and top 10. My point is that it's foolish to wait to make a bet on QB until you see one that you think is top 5. Rosen Darnold and Mayfield each has less than a10% probability of being top 5. Betting on them is a long shot. Better strategy to go after a guy who is high probably top 10 and hope he exceeds expectations. He gives you a chance to compete every year. Getting a top 5 guy is luck. Probably one out of 10 guys picked at 1 through 10 becomes top 5, 1 out of 50 of the guys picked after that. I'd take Cousins, know I can compete every year, and hope either he over achieves or I find my top 5 guy in the draft in succeeding years.

I don't think the objective is a top 5 QB. I think it's top 10. If you're objective is top 5, it will take 20 or 30 years to get there. Dolphins have been looking that long. Jets. Redskins, Tennessee, Baltimore, Cincinnati. Detroit, Buffalo, Denver, Jacksonville, Tampa Bay. Minnesota. Chicago's been looking 50 years. It's a fool's game to make your objective a top 5 QB. The objective is to be competitive this year, or next, or the year after. If you have a top 10 quarterback, you can compete. Look at anyone's list of the top 10. Those look like they have a legitimate shot at the playoffs every year, and that's what you want. So I think the question is whether Cousins is top 10, not top 5. Top 10 is a close question. Once Brady, Ben and Brees retire, Cousins probably is top 10. If you have a guy who's top 10, then I think Hapless is correct - it doesn't matter how much you pay him. Obviously, you'd like to pay him as little as possible, but even if he's the 10th best QB and you make him the highest paid QB in the league, it's worth it, because he gives you a shot at the playoffs every year. The Ravens did it with Flacco, but it turned out they were wrong - he isn't top 10. Lions did it with Stafford, probably a good move. Raiders did it with Carr, we'll see. Colts did it with Luck, and we'll see about that, too. Falcons did it with Ryan, good move. Bengals did it with Dalton, probably not such a good move. The point, however, is not whether the decision turned out to be a good move or not. It's whether the guy is a good bet to turn out top 10. If he is a good bet, you make the bet, and it really doesn't matter how many chips you have to put on the table. If you don't bet on someone, you can't win. And if you think Cousins is a good bet for the top 10, he's a better bet than an untested rookie, no matter how much contract money you save. The surest of sure things in the last 10 years, Andrew Luck, doesn't look so much like a top 10 QB, and there are no QBs in the draft with odds anything like Luck coming out of college.

I hate it but I admire it. And I think McD is trying to copy it.

I love this untapped upside stuff. 32 teams all missed his untapped upside for five rounds in the draft, and 31 have been kicking themselves since his pro debut a couple months ago.

This describes them really well. I'm sure there's one other related thing they do and that is they have a book on everything and everyone. They don't jus watch this year's FIL on someone, like Tyrod. They watch this year's film with all the info they've gathered on Taylor from previous years, so their knowledge becomes cumulative. They've played the same offensive and defensive schemes for years, and they don't forget the things they learned years ago. They bring plays and concepts back when they see an opportunity. It's called institutional knowledge. It gives tham an edge.

I agree with this. Brady gets calls. So do Brees and Rodgers. Newton gets hammered and no call. Taylor too, for that matter.

Why? Because Belichick is a better coach. Somehow he's able to prepare his players, teach his players to do things, and then they execute them regularly. Why does his entire offense get up to the line and properly set for a quick snap without motion or procedure calls? Because they practice it until they can do it right all the time. I heard a retired player on the radio say that he had played for several teams and the Patriots were the only team that EVERY WEEK gave him three or four or five particular keys to look for in the guy who was lining up against him, things that tipped whether it was a run or a pass, a blitz or not, etc. And he said those keys always were right. He said no team prepared him to play in a way that was remotely similar to what the Pats did.

They earned my respect a few years ago. I'm sick of their winning, and they ought to be punished much more severely when they get caught cheating, but they are better than everyone else and they deserve the wins they get. They get calls because they create opportunities for the refs to throw flags.

I don't agree. I think Belichick is light years ahead of all the other coaches in the league, and he has the 18-year record to prove it. The reason we think the Pats are cheaters is because he takes every advantage of every rule he can, and in doing so, he steps over the line occasionally and actually cheats. He and his staff think of everything, they teach it to their players, and the players execute. So, for example, I don't see receivers come back for balls to draw the interference call nearly as often as the Pats do. If that receiver had run back into Gilmore, he would have gotten the call, because Gilmore had been beaten and the refs give the call to the receiver when he beats the defender. Gilmore made a great play, but if the receiver had stepped up into Gilmore's path and made a play on the ball, he'd have gotten the call. So, for example, Brady's really good at getting his team to the line of scrimmage and snapping the ball quickly to catch the other side with too many men on the field, or before they can line up to stop a quick dive play, or to take advantage of a mismatch. Other teams try it, and many teams fail it, getting called for illegal motion or procedure, because they didn't get set properly, or jumping early, or one thing or another. It isn't that the refs call it on the other teams and not on the Pats. It's because the Pats are properly trained to execute that, and then they do it without making mistakes. So, for example, the Patriots know not to bring the kickoff out of the end zone in the fourth quarter. They never do. Why? Because Belichick has figured out and he teaches his coaches and players that coming out of the end zone is a high risk, low reward proposition. If you're behind, you don't want to burn the clock when you can get 25 yards without any time running. If you're ahead, you don't want to hurt yourself with bad field position. Belichick knows the rules and takes advantage of them. No one else does it like he does it.

This doesn't make sense. If you're talking about the situation where the guy blows by you, that's something that happens within 15 yards of the line of scrimmage, so a 15-yard penalty makes sense. When people are talking about is the downfield plays where the defender hits the receiver early or holds an arm down or something like that. The problem with that being a spot foul is that some of the time those penalties are close calls, the defender isn't intentionally interfering, and his team gets hit with a 35-yard penalty. That isn't right. Now, if they changed them all to 15 yards, maybe you'd start getting more intentional pass interference, and I suppose that would be a problem. Maybe you'd have to make intentional pass interference an unsportsmanlike conduct call - two of those and you're out of the game. Then of course there would be arguments about whether the ref was right to call it intentional, but that would still be better than now, where a guy is making a legitimate play but gets there too early and gets tagged for 35 yards.

One thing they do in that situation is the receivers are very good at coming back to the ball to create the interference. They do it all the time. It's just another example of how extraordinarily well coached and prepared they are. Late in the game yesterday, on the play that Gilmore made the great leaping defense of the throw, the receiver didn't do what the Pats' receivers do. He kept running downfield to make the over-the-shoulder catch if the ball got through. It was the wrong play. Put on the breaks, go up for the ball and Gilmore runs right into you. Even though Gilmore clearly was playing the ball, the receiver gets the interference call on that play every time. The receiver allowed Gilmore to make the play instead of taking the penalty.

I like Mayfield and if the Bills don't sign Cousins I hope it will just as you say. I don't think Mayfield will last to 21. Trading up to 12 or 15 would be okay. He has more upside than Cousins but more downside. Cousins involves less risk.

It's all about whether he's top 10 or not, and I get that people disagree. But if he is top 10, then someone will pay upwards of 30 AND IT WILL BE THE RIGHT DECISION. It may not work out, in which case you have a cap problem for a while, but if he's good but not at the top of the league, the fact that you're paying him $5 million more than he should get doesn't matter. He has more impact on the game than the two guys you'd get for that $5 million. One thing is sure - he's getting a big deal. Romo's a good comparison. Cousins has comparable stats for Romo's early years. Carr looked pretty weak sometimes this season. I wouldn't be too quick to bet on him. It's not an easy call.