Einstein's Dog
-
Posts
1,461 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Einstein's Dog
-
-
45 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
I will reiterate:
1. One good WR is not a linchpin of anything. The only single position that is truly a linchpin is QB and we have a great one.
2. If you pick up a contract you have to cover the salary in place. You keep making assumptions. Assumptions that Beane can do so without understanding that, how much he has to allocate to rookies, how much he’ll have to pay in injury replacements, etc. Assumptions are easy Ito make from the sidelines, not so easy when you are the guy having to do the job.
3. I tend to believe Beane when he says things. I also tend to not change my opinion on Beane from good to pathetic based on making or not making one trade.
Fair enough. And for me:
1. The addition of a good WR changes dramatically the entire off-season moves. It ties in everything he has done (and I was rooting for). But it all hinges on his finishing it off. The state of the WR room is hanging in the balance.
2. Now you're adjusting your amateur capology to say you have to cover the salary. Prior it was cap hit. Some internet quote (you put in this thread) said cap hit minus bonus. The linked article said the Steelers would need $13M to cover Metcalf (and that there could be a restructure done with no void years that would reduce his 2024 salary by almost $6M). And you say I'm making assumptions? Whatever, I'm confident Beane knows what it is and has planned for it. Once again, it's his job. And from the tidbits we have seen it is totally reasonable to think it can be done.
3. What about when Beane said "we will never rebuild as long as Josh is my quarterback". That's the Beane I choose to believe.
-
5 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:
His track record of moves and the fact that he's never done that (restructuring someone more than once in the same off season) in the 8 years and countless deals he's done as GM isn't "just because". It goes to how he operates and this isn't his normal operating procedure.
As for the Metcalf contract, here's an in depth look. The cap room we would need to make it happen Post 6/1 is 13m. We would not have enough after doing the two moves left we could theoretically do (Oliver and Milano restructures), factoring in our other expenses:
https://steelersdepot.com/2024/05/evaluating-dk-metcalfs-contract-situation-with-seahawks/
Overtures on Draft Day were rebuffed. I don't believe he's available. It'd be great to have him. But why would they move him at this point? They aren't tanking. Why would they now, Post Draft, and Post the WR FA market being picked through - choose to trade away one of their best players with no way of replacing him?
I fall in with the poster above me. Would it be great? Yes. But the stance of expecting it like you seem to or even thinking it's even so much as a 50/50 shot - I just don't see it.
Once again you're going into the weeds of Beane's job. As an overview though you can see how with a short term boost to around $15M allows Beane to bring on a top WR. And this time your research has you conclude that, in fact, he could afford Metcalf if he had $15M, which would also be enough for Aiyuk and DHop - probably D Adams too. We've seen how with a WR such as Diggs, a high priced WR can be restructured down to a cap hit of only $6M. So it's just a short term boost and we can stop the reduction talks of how much draft picks are etc.
Beane is getting $10M Tre money June 1st, all he needs is another $5M to bring a top WR on board. Of course he can get that. It's my contention that he has been planning on this since he moved Diggs out. And while it may have never been done before the meat on the bone with Josh very well could have been his back up plan to make sure he has the funds to make this happen. Seems logical to me, something a smart GM would do. There is speculation (okay, it's me) that Beane made a gentleman's deal with the SF GM for Aiyuk prior to the draft.
I do seem to be the only one expecting such a move. My logic has been this: Beane is a great GM, a great GM does not have a pathetic WR room while Josh is in his prime. Therefore this WR room is not done.
With the thought that the WR is not done, I've actually been pleased with several developments. I didn't want the Bills trading up for a top 3 WR. I didn't want 2 WRs drafted, that would have meant to me that the FO was going through with a rebuild. I didn't want to get a high priced FA WR, they weren't good enough. The move I have hoping for was to get a good proven WR.
Everyone's fine or great if we get a good WR. The difference seems to be if we don't get one. For me, not getting one drastically reduces my opinion of Beane. Terrible off-season out of him. Having a bottom 5 WR group doesn't cut it in my book.
This WR move is the lynchpin of the evaluation of his offseason, with it - excellent transition to youth/reload, without it what a disappointment. If Beane doesn't trade for a good WR, the other moves - not moving up, not drafting 2 WRs (like Franklin late), not getting a good better FA WR (like OBJ) - all moves I had rejoiced in - look like mistakes.
-
1 hour ago, BillsFanForever19 said:
Diggs' cap hit is a case in point to you saying "we don't take on cap in a trade". And it's just the Base salary. If that's the case, why would Diggs have a cap hit for the Texans at all?
And yes, they were able to get it down to 6m - after a massive restructure. But they had to take it as is first BEFORE they could get it down to 6m. Initially, when they did the trade, even after everything we took on - the hit for the Texans was still 19m at the time of the trade.
And therein lies the problem. We have to be able to take on one of these WR's cap hit and the full terms of their current contract from the team we're trading with AS IS for the trade to be approved by the league.
We can't say "well, we don't have it now but once the deal goes through, we'll make it work". We either have the money to take on the cap hit as is and the trade goes through or we don't and the trade doesn't go through.
Before the Offseason started, there was a long list of measures we could do as far as releases, extensions, and restructures to get out from under the massive hole we were in. Since then, we have done every single one on the list, save for two - a restructure of Oliver and a restructure of Milano.
So let's do some accounting....
After the signings of MVS and Dee Delaney and the release of Quintez Cephus, we're at about, we'll say, 1.75m under. Add in the 10.25 from Tre - that brings us to roughly 12. A restructure of Oliver can save us 3.9m and a restructure of Milano can bring us another 2.4m. That gives us around 18.3. That's the highest amount I see us possibly reaching.
BUT! Even if we do those two moves and don't spend a dime on anyone else - which I don't see happening as we never replaced Dane Jackson and we're currently going into the season with just Elam (still a massive question mark) and UDFA/PS players underneath the oft-injured Benford and Douglas - there's still a number of things we have no choice but to account for....
We haven't signed our Draft Picks. We have to be able to pay for the Practice Squad. And we need some money for the In Season Spending Pool. So from that possible 18.3 or so, you need to subtract around 8. And this is something that there's no way around.
That leaves us with roughly around 10-10.5, give or take - if we were to restructure Milano and Oliver and sign no one else. Now - let's look at the cap hits for the guys :
Deebo Samuel - 28.83m
Davante Adams - 24.35m
DK Metcalf - 24.5m
Tee Higgins - 21.816m
Brandon Aiyuk - 14.124m
You see the problem here, right? Even if the cap number comes down a little bit on most of these guys - the money simply isn't there. It would take radical moves like re-structuring Josh again - which I don't see happening, he's never restructured someone twice in the same offseason and if he felt comfortable taking more from Josh, he would have done it then. He'd also have to restructure moves he just did, which I just don't see him doing.
*Maybe* Aiyuk could be done. Maybe there's a way that through the trade, his cap would fall to around the 10 number we'd have. But, again, it would take re-structuring both Oliver and Milano - which he chose not to do when he was doing ALL the things he could to scrape up money and not signing anyone else at other positions.
There is never a literally 0% chance of anything.
But it not being a 0% chance doesn't make it likely or logically feasible. And people pointing out the flaws in the likelihood of it happening doesn't mean these same people think we're in amazing shape or that these WR's you're mentioning wouldn't help or wouldn't be great to have.
I would be thrilled to land one of these guys. I hope he could make something like this happen.
It's just when you really look at the scenarios of what it would take, what we could feasibly do, and what we've done already - it adds up to an incredibly unlikely scenario. And that's where the disconnect is between you and the majority of posters on this thread.
After Drafting Keon Coleman and signing Curtis Samuel, MVS, Mack Hollins, and Chase Claypool already - it seems even more unlikely that they'd add yet *another* WR, at this point. This one the most expensive of them all, after everything he's done already. Had we not acquired one or two of these WR's and not signed some of the people we had before, it'd be a more manageable situation right now. But those deals are done and they aren't just going to be ignored or thrown away.
We only kept 5 WR's total last season. And we've got 5 guys already that aren't going anywhere. There's a reason they signed MVS, after Drafting Coleman and signing Samuel and Hollins. And to me, it's because he recognizes he just can't feasibly or responsibly pull something like what you're suggesting off - comfortable enough to his management of the team.
I think it would help to take a step back and look at the big picture. It's Beane's job to know the cash requirements of getting a trade WR on board and then what salary he would want to reduce that to. He knew/knows those numbers and has a plan to meet them. That's what a top GM does.
Going into the specifics is difficult for us. But it does seem reasonable to think it requires the $10M Tre money. Then I think it would be about only $5Mish more needed to bring a big fish WR in before restructuring. As you mention Aiyuk is $14.5.. And for Metcalf you list his $24.5 cap but aren't subtracting the bonus money (which is what oldmanfan's rules stated). Metcalf had a $30M bonus so even if prorated for $10M, Metcalf could make it for the brief $15M cash on hand.
You don't see Josh restructuring again, just because. But I can see this as part of the plan all along.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:
Is there a Top 10 veteran WR in there? No. But 22 teams in the NFL don't have one of those. And while we don't have a Top 10 guy, we have a wide spread of talented players in the Offensive firepower core that spreads larger than most teams.
Ultimately, do I wish we had more on the Outside than Coleman, MVS, and Hollins? Yes. But we simply don't have the means to do it. The cost is too great. You DO take on the Cap Hit of a traded player (case in point, even after restructuring and massaging Diggs' deal, he still accounts for a 6m cap hit in Houston), you just don't take on the bonus money or dead cap - which lowers it a bit.
But of the guys you want (that actually may be available), the cap hit's are SO massive. We have to take on the full hit before we can restructure it. And we simply can't after everything we've already done and the limited amount of moves we have left.
Appreciate the response, some comments.
1. Top 10? How about we get a top 30 WR?
2. How is Diggs a case in point for you? You mention he is a $6M cap hit, which is exactly what I am talking about. The ability to get an Aiyuk/Metcalf/D Adams/DHop at that price is what I think many don't realize could happen. How does restructuring Diggs to $6M mean that the guys I outlined cap hits would be SO massive? Kind of suggests the opposite to me. The cap hit can be manipulated to future years.
3. It seems like people's bias show through. People that like Beane but don't think a WR addition is happening are making all kinds of excuses. There is this Teflon Beane going on. Several people in this thread said "No One", like they really wouldn't want a good WR? One eluded to reading Shaw's explanation - like adding a good WR would ruin Beane's genius plan to run a bunch of WR2's out there. Others throw their hands up and say "Beane can't do it because of the cap". Like Beane has no influence on the cap.
4. I thought there would be like minded people to me, that believes Beane is a top GM and a top GM will be making a move. What that move is exactly was open for discussion. We haven't been able to get that far. Many feel the need to chime in and reiterate how in their opinion it can't/won't be done. This has been highlighted by the step by step rebuttal of each of what I perceived to be signs ending with what I hope will be a not soon forgotten classic "there is literally a 0% chance".
Back to the OP - I am now rooting for one of the younger options Metcalf/Aiyuk. It would make for a Phase 2 for offense. We would have playmakers set for several years and Josh would be the veteran. Look at the years Josh-locked in, Kincaid 4, Coleman 4, new young stud WR Aiyuk/Metcalf 4, Samuel 3, Shakir 2, Cook 2, Davis 4. That offense would have just minor changes for the next 4 years! And that would be a young, potent, talented offense.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:
What folks are doing is drafting them on a rookie contract so they can let them walk b3fore their salary impact ts the cap.
That has been the RB playbook and will be the WR playbook for smart teams. Rinse and repeat every 3-5 years
Which is why the Bills only drafting one is curious. We had 2 depart. Hopefully they'll keep replenishing regularly now.
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
When did you last see an alligator shy from contact? I'll hang up and listen.
Was Ronnie Harmon before your time?
Most notable alligator arming in Bills history.
-
4 minutes ago, HappyDays said:
Unfortunately I think after the MVS signing there is almost no chance of a big trade. Maybe at the deadline.
The top 5 WRs are locked in. Coleman, Samuel, and Shakir obviously. Hollins and MVS both got guaranteed money which is a sign that they are roster locks (OJ Howard is the only player that got guaranteed money and didn't make the roster in the Beane era). That leaves room for one more WR. If a trade was in the cards, I don't think we bother bringing Claypool and Hamler to camp.
So before MVS I agreed a trade was still likely because there were two open spots and not enough candidates to fill them. With just one open spot I think the WR room is what it is, unfortunately. The 6th spot will be one of the scratch offs we've signed or it will be one of our late round/UDFA rookie WRs from last year.
Unless Claypool or Hamler miraculously turns their career around I agree that Beane is going to look stupid but you should accept now that no big moves are coming.
I'm obviously having trouble accepting this. Still in denial.
The MVS signing did hurt in terms of the odds of what I want to happen. But it doesn't change my overall feeling that Beane won't let the Bills main components of the WR room be C Samuel/rookie Coleman/Shakir.
-
9 minutes ago, Mat68 said:
When you trade for a player you get the contract as it is. That has to fit the current cap situation. Once here the contract can be changed but the contract being acquired is the one he signed.
The Diggs trade is made with the belief that…
1. Diggs is no longer a top 10 receiver and Buffalo is paying him like he is for the next 3 years.
2. The compensation offered from Houston will be the highest he will garner going forward.
3. Shakir in a primary role can do a lot of the things Diggs offered down the stretch last season.
4. Diggs was not going to accept a reduced target share. 160 targets was not happening and Diggs was already campaigning for his usage to match the first half of 2023 vs the second half of the season.
The sum of it all is why they made the trade. Shakirs potential, the ability to add a solid prospect in the draft and addition of Samuel made the trade something Buffalo could swallow. Diggs wanted out so Monday through Saturday improvement greatly. Sunday they feel they have enough on offense to mitigate his absence. Adding Ayuik, or Higgins wasnt part of it. You could add Debo or Hopkins but I dont see the difference makers they once were and the cost wouldn't match what you were getting.
Yes, when you trade you have to accept some type of contract (oldmanfan quoted cap hit minus bonus). That is why everyone is thinking June 1st is relevant.
I don't mind trading Diggs, I kind of like it, if there is a suitable replacement. C Samuels is not IMO (and many others) a suitable replacement. C Samuels/K Coleman combine to make for a suitable replacement (arguably upgrade) over G Davis.
I think Beane is an intelligent GM. An intelligent GM would not move Diggs and Davis without a plan to replenish the WR room. So far the WR room is woefully inadequate, yet would all come together with one trade. I don't know how you can be so sure Aiyuk wasn't part of it - SF just drafted 2 WRs with one in the first round - when they have Deebo/Aiyuk/CMC/Kittle with contracts for Aiyuk + Purdy looming.
-
2 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:
The Diggs trade worked out but it was the culmination of 3 prior offseasons of failure at addressing WR1. They had to trade for a vet at the worst possible time(a WR deep draft) because there was no longer any margin for error. He's just refused to get out of front of the problem.
I know we are in agreement on the issue. The likelihood is that priority #1 going into next offseason will again likely be finding a WR1 so not addressing it now if they have the opportunity makes no sense.
Everyone feels brave about what they have on their roster until the pads come on and it becomes clear that you need to win matchups. Kincaid was a dink-and-dunk option last season and could just as easily turn into Jimmy Graham with Seattle if he has a CB on him every play instead of those favorable S/LB matchups. Curtis Samuel isn't going to have much success against the high pedigree CB1's in this division. All it takes is not having somebody to soak up the "Sauce" to create bad matchups for the rest of the group.
This year's group looks in more dire need of a top WR than when they traded for Diggs.
People thinking as it stands this is a fine job by Beane start to lose a little credibility in my book. The WR group is just too limited. I can get around the DE problem, but not the WR. And the cap excuse doesn't cut it with me either, that is part of his job. And I feel it can be worked (and actually will).
Oldmanfan had asked how one move could mean so much. It is because it is the lynchpin move. An additional top tier WR changes the whole outlook of the WR group. It becomes better than last year IMO. It brings together all the little things Beane did (or didn't do).
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:
Dumb for him to hold out. I'm sure Miami's FO really doesnt want to give him $50-60M/year.
Maybe that's the issue. The offers from the Dolphins are lower than he expected.
If I were the Dolphins, I'd let him walk. But as a Bills fan I hope he gets himself a big contract there.
Not stupid at all IMO. Tua made it intact through a whole season last year. And by negotiating now, the Fins would be in real trouble without him this season.
Tua probably gave the idea of retiring a lot of thought the last two years . And he now knows what priority the Fins have for his well-being when the ran him back out there after being concussed in the Bills game. Another big blow and I could see him calling it quits. It would take money early if I were him. And I would squeeze every dime out of Miami as well.
-
3
-
-
6 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:
I agree, however Samuel and MVS are both explosive players. Samuel has one of the very fastest releases off the line in the entire league per analytics/next gen tracking. MVS is a legit deep threat. Has previously led the league with a 20.9 ypc avg in a seasonWhat would you give up for Aiyuk? You mentioned earlier you would go with a 1st+ for Metcalf.
How do you rate my 4 top contenders - Aiyuk/Metcalf/DHop/D Adams?
-
3 hours ago, CSBill said:
To the thread question: No one. Read the Rockpile Review posted by Shaw.
Are you saying you don't want another WR? That you don't want to add an Aiyuk/Metcalf because it would hurt the strategy as laid out by Shaw?
And what exactly was that strategy, not to invest in WRs while we already don't invest in RBs. So where exactly should we put this money?
-
1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:
The reason I don't think Beane will trade for a top WR is because he's consistently dropped the ball with adding pass catchers.
After the AFCCG loss in 2020 he cited the Bills lack of speed at the position as a key reason why.............then subsequently signed the slow Manny Sanders as his only WR move.
Each offseason since has just been another compromise at the position as they've gotten consistently worse there.
I think Beane is an excellent GM and it is really the basis for me thinking he has planned to add a prime WR all along. He didn't drop the ball at all when he traded for Diggs - it was a brilliant move that elevated the Bills into contender status for the next 4 years. He should do it again.
The graphic above showed how little money the Bills have currently invested in the WR room. And if a similar one was done for RBs the Bills would once again be at the bottom (Cook/Davis/Ty). The Bills should be spending money on playmakers someplace and that would be at WR (sorry Shaw they are not all the same).
I think Aiyuk has taken the lead as most likely. The Bills may have a gentlemens agreement with SF. SF double dipped at WR with one in the 1st round.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, DJB said:
And you have to figure the Bills RB room is in a similar position - low round 2 Cook, round 4 rookie and bargain basement Ty.
-
5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
No. Of course you wouldn’t change your tune. What if Coleman goes for 1000 yards? If Shaw would have to change his tune, what would cause you to change your tune? Fair is fair after all.
Well, I expect and want Coleman to be good. Coleman is slated to be an important piece even in my world where we trade for a WR.
So, I guess if we don't trade for another WR and Hollins gets a 1,000 I'll change my tune and think Beane did a good job and Shaw was right any JAG will do.
-
8 minutes ago, SoonerBillsFan said:
Are you 100% Beane is going to trade for a WR vs going with Coleman developing into a #1 and spreading the ball around this year?
I just don't see a trade coming. Amd yes make the playoffs with Josh still putting up top QB numbers.
Actually I see trading for a WR as a way to develop Coleman. Without a trade we're throwing him in there.
I do want to spread the ball around. Having another good WR will help to do that. Having Aiyuk or Metcalf along with Coleman on the field will open things up for Shakir/Kincaid/Samuel underneath.
-
8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
Would you change your tune if he doesn’t make a trade and the Bills are once again a playoff team?
No, that's not the barometer for Beane's performance. Beane supplies the talent to the coaches. The Bills almost didn't make the playoffs last year and I wasn't blaming Beane.
-
1 hour ago, Mat68 said:
MVS, Hollins and whoever else makes the roster are vying for the scraps. MVS and Hollins are better wrs than Harty and Sherfield. Hamler and Claypool offer more potential though neither have an expectation of playing or being on the roster. I dont expect them being able to afford the contract of Ayuik, Metcalf, or Adams. Eating the amount of salary to get under the 10 mil post June 1st would likely require a 1st. Thats a road I dont see Beane and Buffalo going. 24 Kincaid will be the primary target. Shakir, Samuel and Coleman will receive 90% of the wr targets.
Managing the cap is part of Beane's job. If he chooses to not get another WR my evaluation of his performance decreases tremendously. He should of had (and I think he did) all of this planned or at least outlined in his head prior to unloading Diggs. The idea floated about now that Beane is ahead of the curve by assembling a room of no-name WRs doesn't come close to cutting it.
No, my avenue to thinking Beane is smart is through his thinking ahead when he accumulated draft picks, put aside Tre money, and left some Josh money on the table, and only drafted one WR. That all makes sense when he trades for a good WR. A WR room featuring a rookie, $8M WR2/3, and Shakir is mind-blowingly poor.
Getting into the weeds a little bit on the cap piece, the salary can be manipulated once they are brought on board. For instance last years salary of DHop is listed as $1.8M in spotrac. Games can be played with distributing the cost over multiple years. And if we got a WR for multiple years, the offensive playmakers are set. Josh- multiple, Cook 2 yrs more, Kincaid 4yrs, Shakir 2, K Coleman 4, Samuel 3, new WR multiple, backup RB 4. They don't need 2025 cap on offense playmakers.
We'll see if Shaw changes his tune once Beane pulls the trigger and gets a real WR in here. Then you can say, even in this youth transition Beane improved the WR room. That's a good GM.
-
13 minutes ago, Mat68 said:
I see it as take Diggs 160 targets split between Samuel and Shakir. Most of Davis to Coleman. The remainder of targets to MVS, Hollins and whoever else makes the roster. Kincaid and Cook likely see more too. I think Kincaid is the only guy with over 100 targets. Shakir, Samuel and Coleman will relatively have a similar share. Not one wr is replacing Diggs. I think Shakir is highly thought of in the organization and Samuel could have a career year playing with far and away his best qb. It’s not the greatest show on turf. It also is not the 2018 wr core. I think its better than 2019 and with Kincaid and Cook make it an above average group.
It's the MVS, Hollins part that I do not want to see. For all the talk about interchangeable WRs - it does not include those dregs.
Don't need someone to take the volume of Diggs, but instead someone who is good, who helps split the overall target share and who would force the defenses to strategize against, which in turn makes the targets to the remaining players easier.
If we get a Metcalf/Aiyuk/D Adams/Dhop the whole defensive strategy changes and Samuel/Shakir/Kincaid group will be free to eat underneath.
-
2 minutes ago, chris heff said:
Fair enough, but I think you’re discounting Samuel. He is the most interesting WR signing, the only legitimate QB he ever played with is Newton at the end of his career, others were Kyle Allen, Taylor Heinicke and Sam Howell. He has been on bad teams with bad QBs.
I like the Samuel pick in the context of having Samuel and K Coleman take over the expected role of G Davis. I can see that being an improvement. And Samuel could also get snaps for Shakir.
The one addition makes a huge difference IMO. It significantly changes my entire evaluation of Beane's off-season moves.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, chris heff said:
Diggs was mediocre to downright invisible in multiple games for two seasons, he was a cancer in the locker room. He did the same thing in Minnesota. Diggs had to go. It’s not so easy to go out and get a veteran WR1.
I don't have a problem with moving Diggs- unless the plan was to replace him with C Samuel, then that is a terrible plan.
And just because Diggs wasn't good down the stretch doesn't mean you replace them with someone who isn't good. You try to upgrade.
It may not be easy to get a good veteran WR, but that is Beane's job! The available WRs are not publicly posted but seems like they would be out there if the offer is right. That's why I'm thinking post June 1st something happens.
-
12 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
His worst year. By a lot. Because of one theoretical player.
Because the downgrade at such an important position is so large. WR1 in particular.
You can't seriously tell me you're replacing Diggs with a rookie or an $8M FA Wash WR2/3. It is such a downgrade, that yes, if significantly affects my entire evaluation of Beane's off-season work.
And I like Beane, I have thought he was one of the best in the business. The one additional WR keeps him in that realm. That's why I think it is going to happen.
-
1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:
Kupp and St. Brown would dominate on the Bills every year.
how many of the greatest WRs playing now--or in history--- dominated simply because they were/are "physical"?
The Bills and the WR room have been a chronic problem for years. No need to pretend that's some grand plan...
The Bills WR room has been a work in progress for years, but generally I've been able to see the logic in it. It was a good back in the Diggs/Brown/Beasley day, then seemed rational to put in Sanders. Next year it seemed logical to promote G Davis to a bigger role - I was on board with that (although it didn't work).
I bought in to the thought that Beasley wasn't physically gifted and his production was scheme related and replaceable with McKenzie/Crowder.
This year there the WR room is totally illogical - pathetic - Unless a trade for a good WR takes place. That's why I think it will happen. With a trade, logically you can see Diggs replaced by the new trade, G Davis replaced by a combo of C Samuel/K Coleman, Shakir at #3. I can be on board with that. If the trade doesn't happen, which most people seem to think, this is IMO Beane's worst year - by a lot.
-
The denigrating of C Kupp and Amon-Ra St Brown as just great producers seems odd. Comparing them to Singletary doesn't hold up- at least not in the market place- they got paid whereas Singletary did not. There are many facets to being a top tier WR and not all of them are physical. Brings up the we can replace Beasley with McKenzie thoughts.
Not all teams should be following the same program. A team with Brock Purdy is not the same as a team with The Josh Allen. A team with one of the all time great arms should allocate resources to have 2 good outside WRs.
One reason the Bills don't pay big on RBs is so they can put the money into another area. Right now the most expensive playmaker on offense is under $10M.
I agree you don't want a diva, but the top WR for the Bills should not be C Samuel.
Looks like you're just trying to rationalize what you think the Bills are about to do. I think the Bills will trade for a good WR after June 1st. They should.
-
1
-
WR trade candidates, who do you want?
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
My apologies if I mistook you for other posters.
Please do not put much stock in these alleged wise posters who continue to change their cap/salary implications. It is safe to say Beane has a much better grip on what it takes. And a good GM would have positioned himself to meet the requirements (I believe he has).
For instance it seems quite safe to say that after June 1st there is the potential for a surge in funds that should be sufficient to bring in a top tier WR (Tre money + potential restructures + potentially another preplanned hit to Josh = > $15M). The article above mentions $13M needed for Metcalf and Aiyuk looks to be about $14M. The acquired WR can then have their contract restructured - much like Diggs had his restructured to a $6M cap hit.
Who cares if Beane says he is okay with the WR room? That is just blather, what else is he supposed to say. What matters is if he actually believes it, which is hard to believe any reasonable person would. Only diehard Beane fans can twist the top three WRs of; WR2/3 from Wash, a second round rookie, and last years WR3, as an acceptable WR room. And I agree with you that that is not a rebuild- a rebuild would have been with 2 drafted WRs - right now it's just pathetic. That's not what a good GM does.
It's okay to have different hopes/expectations. You can be anxious for camp, I want to see what the first week of June brings.