Einstein's Dog

For me, it's not the social media post as much as it is the substance of the post, the $15M. It gave a clue into difficult negotiations and not surprisingly Cook is the last to be extended. You can keep claiming it means nothing (just as many dismissed Diggs social media as "kids will be kids").

Putting out a high number on social media is not a common tactic. Why do that? What do you think of that? While the negotiation is between Cook and Beane the public has received some information - and so far, IMO, Beane is the clear leader.

No, if the 6th rounder (Benford type) outplays the 1st rounder (Elam type) it doesn't matter.

No, Cook's team (with the amateur agent and devious Dalvin) have not done a good job. The idea of starting with a high number on social media may backfire big time. If that figure was never released there would be much more support for Cook. This may be a blessing for the FO. What if the FO never wanted to pay an RB big money? Cook's team has given the FO an out -the fanbase is clearly on the side of Beane. The trick now is for Beane to get Cook to play on his current contract this season. As for Cook knowing he has to play - I'm not so sure about that. Seems like most think Cook could get $12M if he were on the open market now. Playing as a 2 down back again in 2025 doesn't change that figure, so Cook may not want to risk it. As for the "given RB is an easier position to replace if need be", it's the "need be" part of the equation that is tricky. The RB room is kind of full for 2025 right now if you include Cook. But if Cook is going to sit out 11 games you may want to draft another RB in the upcoming draft.

And help McDermott's decision to go for it on 4th down.

They didn't care about that. What they did care about was when the one team had a strategy to defend the tush-push by guessing the count and sending a defender flying over the center -they got all bent out of shape about that. After the defense did it a couple of times the refs threatened to award Philly a TD - what? That annoyed me.

It's more like banning a play where one team gets the benefit of the doubt that the first down is made unless there is evidence to the contrary, and another team (the Bills) needs to provide evidence that the first down was made. Now that the play has been exposed that the refs have no idea with spotting the ball, the play should be retired. Also it's an unattractive play, already flirting with rule violations in getting pushed from behind, and seems like only a matter of time before someone just goes full out to injure the QB.

There's a problem in just giving Cook a raise because he outplayed his contract, and that is because that is part the incentive in the extension process. You don't let the player have it both ways - get a raise and go hit FA. Also the FO doesn't have any worries now about the optics, Cook and his team took care of that with the post about $15M - really stupid thing of his team to do.

Seems like a planted rumor out from SF trying to get a team to put in an offer with a made up ultimatum. SF would like to get someone to trade prior to a large payment going out to Aiyuk, don't see how SF paying him takes him off the trade market though.

I think James Cook's brother has already been personally insulted by the opening offer from the Bills. The problem as I see it is, the best 2 down RB in the league (D Henry) is making $8M/yr. Cook seems to want to be paid among the best 3 down RBs in the league ($12M to dare I say $15? per year). I don't think the Bills want, or plan, on Cook being a 3 down back for them. I'm still trying to make sense of why Cook's team put that $15M figure out there. Did they think the Bills fanbase would rally behind them?

I think they can use it as a tie-breaker, when the price is close. Like DK saying he doesn't want to play in the cold really means "he doesn't want to play for the New England losers unless they offer a couple million more than anyone else." We've been there.

The top 3 stuff doesn't matter, what matters is that you strive to get better. The easiest way for the offense to get better is/was improving at WR. The TEs are good to excellent, the RB room is excellent (although I can see that slipping w the Cook situation and would not blame Beane), and the OL is excellent and is QB. But the WR room looks weak again. And like many I still wish the move had been made for DK. Looking forward I hope they either add a decent draft pick at WR or get A Cooper back at the price they have in mind.

Right, I hope they don't feel roped in. And I'm not sure they did in 2022, it just felt that way to be me because of the way I had things ranked.

I disagree some. You shouldn't have such a gaping hole that you disgard a top tier BPA at a premium position of need. In 2022 I think the FO was so intent on a CB that they weren't even considering the top WR tier. C Watkins and G Pickens were still available - and since there were two of them they wouldn't have needed to trade up. Those two seemed upper tier to me whereas the CBs did not.

Some of us are more fearful of the substance of Cook's message, wanting top tier dollar, the $15M remark. I don't know where you are getting this "RBs who are very good to elite, are getting paid" from. According to Spotrac only 5 RS average over $10M a season - Barkley/McCaffrey/Taylor/Kamara+Jacobs. Cook's statistics are not at the level of those players and that is the $10M mark.

Gone for what at that point? After TC most teams will have their RB rooms figured out, moving an RB that wants to be a 3 down back and get paid, won't be easy. I personally can see the FO realizing this is a problem now and moving him either prior or during the draft. That way the Bills could draft a replacement, an RB room of R Davis, Ty, and the good rookie would work for me. It would be unfortunate though because I think Cook is really good.

Yes, Cook not playing for multiple games is a real fear to me. If, as some people have said, Cook could get around $12M/yr right now in FA (with say $15-$20M guaranteed) playing in 2025 for $5M seems risky. If you are not increasing that projected salary, because you are plateauing at your 2024 stats (which would seem to be the predicted), the monetary reasons behind playing really weaken (you get the weekly amount of the $5M salary but put at risk the big $15-$20M guarantee payday). Unfortunately, if I were Cook's agent, and I determined the market to be what was discussed above, I would be advising him not to play most of 2025 at $5M (hold out thru week 11). I would be recommending that Cook forgo the $5M to take the anticipated guaranteed $15M in 2026. $10M should be a life changing amount. It could be a bad situation and I think the FO is looking at trade opportunities.

Can we please stop with the fictitious Diggs wanted to go to a winner storyline. Everything Diggs did can be explained by a desire to get more money. This is not some change of heart, this is consistent with his motives at every turn. Going from the Bills to Houston was not some decrease in pay situation. Diggs got more money - he got all his guarantee in the one year. Amazing to me how many Bills fans fell for his story.

Yeah, I agree, so far it looks like right now that Palmer is replacing A Cooper and Hollins is being replaced by a larger role for K Coleman. I hope we at least add a good draft pick to the mix. I do like the extensions done by Beane, using guaranteed money to extend at market rates into the future is a great way to keep good players. Wish the deals that were probably offered to Benford and Cook had been accepted.

I think the problem is the FO now has a reduced budget in mind for WR1. I think it was the $30M allocation that kept them out of the DK sweepstakes. D Adams still has talent IMO, but a $20M+ price tag may be out of the new WR1 budget zone. If the FO is tightening the $ on WRs, I really hope they draft one in the first 4 rounds. It needs someone.

There are other options: 1. They could trade Cook before/during the 2025 draft. This would signal the FO is fearing the worst - Cook not playing until week 11 - and not waiting for it to play out. If they move Cook during the draft they could use a 4th (or package a slight trade up) to get another cheap, young RB. 2. They could add some incentives for this year. Like additional money for games played, over 1,000 yards etc. Incentivize Cook for the 2025 season before he walks.

For me it adds to the hurt of missing out on DK Metcalf. That seemed like a reasonable deal for a top tier WR. Just need to adapt to the slight sticker shock of $30M in future years. Seemed like an excellent replacement of the $ (really cap space) that had been given to Diggs. Also I'm having to deal with the probability that the FO is moving away from the high dollar QB/LT/WR1/DL/CB investment strategy that I liked. It now does not seem to include the WR1 in there anymore.

Well with 32 teams you can't be tied for 32nd, you could be tied for 31st.

The problem is Cook may not let himself be run into the ground. He might not play the first 11 games. And after that, game 12, you would probably be leery of his motivation and he wouldn't be starting anymore.

I disagree that he is trying to get paid for the production he has done. Cook's production in '24 was like J Mixon or D Henry - $8M dollar RBs. Cook wants almost double that. IMO Cook is basing his worth on continued improvement - that's only way $15M would come close to making sense. If Cook goes through 2025 and has the same production as 2024 why would a team then pay him more than an inflation adjusted Mixon or D Henry? And I don't think Cook will improve substantially in Buffalo in 2025. I agree with your point about taking the 3rd now. This situation looks like a problem in the making.