Nephilim17

For sure, that's ideal... but given our cap situation what do you spend on that top WR option? And, no, I'm not a "let's fix the D first because we have Josh Allen" guy. It's criminal how we've ignored boundary receivers with high upsides. But how much would you spend this season given where we are at and the holes on D? And question 2: Do you sign the "safe" guy with a history of production but without the really high upside? Or do you sign the high-upside guy without the production? We don't have the $20 million to do both.

We'll see what the court says but interesting how she's suing for $135,000 Canadian which is probably a shade under 100K US. In the NFL I bet this is a million dollar lawsuit.

I'm surprised to see, according to one site, Samuel's projected numbers so low: Projected Contract: 2 years, $15.0 million, $7.5 APY, $9.0M GTD I have no idea if it's accurate but it just may be affordable by the Bills if it's backloaded. https://atozsports.com/washington/curtis-samuel-contract-projection-free-agency/#gid=ci02d5421cf000278d&pid=usatsi_22129331

Unaffordable via free agency because of our cap situation. We'll have to draft this guy.

Good guy, occasionally makes a big play. Crazy contract for his production. Beane swung and missed on this one. It happens. I expect this year will see a lot more of Kincaid and Knox will realize he's lost the TE #1 spot for good. Will he redo his deal for less money? I don't know. Can't release him in 2024 without taking $20 million dead cap. That's $7.8 million dead cap in 2025, vs. a $15.4 million 2025 salary. I expect him cut next year if he doesn't redo.

Ok, mea culpa THAT video was posted after the Dorsey firing. THIS one wasn't. It's very critical of Doresy and it's posted Nov. 6. Before his firing. I quote: "It's got to be frustrating the players on the field to see the lack of creativity week in and week out from Ken Dorsey on offense." 17:52 of the video. But there's criticism throughout. That's just an example. Boom. There ya have it. I wasted too much of my afternoon for this but you're wrong and this is proof.

Actually, not it's not just the opinion of @DrDawkinstein. here is a video where they blame Dorsey for a lot of the play concepts and "shepherding Allen into making some of his bad decisions (they still assign some responsibility to Josh). To make things ultra easy, I'm also attaching a screen shot where they literally say it (see the CC). I've even put a yellow oval around it so you can't miss it.

Thanks for helping me understand (I think). I assume the $9 million is his bonus money, which he get if he plays and which we eat if we get rid of him. So the $31 million of cap space is not impacted by this $9 if he stays or goes. And trading Diggs post June 1 saves us $19 million this year and costs us an extra $13 million against the cap as opposed to keeping him in 2025. Not the end of the world if we trade him post June 1 — if we got some worthwhile assets in return (good vet player with lower cap hit or a high pick). Not saying we should, just that the post-June 1 numbers don't prohibit it. That said, his replacement cost, even as a number 2 in 2025 would have to be factored into the equation. So if we replace him with a $10 million vet #2, it's costing us $23 million more to get that new player rather than keeping Diggs in 2025. If that number is correct, I don't see the point. Unless a cheap rookie replaced him and offered better production.

I'm not 100% clear on this but this is what Spotrac says regarding a Diggs post-June 1 trade: 2024 Dead Cap: $8,849,000 2025 Dead Cap: $22,247,000 2024 Cap Savings: $19,005,000 https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/stefon-diggs-16872/#:~:text=Current Contract,average annual salary of %2424%2C000%2C000. So if the Cover 1 guys say there's $22 million in 2025 dead cap hit, Spotrac agrees, as per above. Are you saying something different? I think you're suggesting that the total available cap space in 2025 is higher than they suggest if this happens. I don't know the 2025 cap space as of now (with no Diggs trade) but it seems pretty definitive that a post-June 1 Diggs trade negatively impacts the 2025 cap — whatever that number is — by $22 million. Let me know if I'm not reading your comments correctly.

The podcast alluded to the Bills wanting to shift to more man coverage this year. I don't recall McD saying that or reading it in any articles thus far. Anyone able to comment?

Sure, that's part of what I meant: the NFL knows it's more "entertaining" when teams score so star offensive players get calls their way because (perhaps) the refs hear a subtle mandate to let the skills of the star players shine and that the NFL wants to ensure points are scored. One more reason to invest more heavily in offensive players. How many times does an iffy PI call happen on a deep bomb that isn't caught? Yet how many times does the defense get an iffy call go their way?

1. 1-tech DTs play well into their mid 30s. 2. They said that they think AJ Epenesa may command higher dollars on the market than Floyd and we get a comp pick from AJ but none from Floyd. They're not saying Floyd is worth big bucks but suggested that for $5 or $6 million he would be a decent signing. Someone also suggested Floyd may have been playing hurt later in the season. 3. I think losing both Hyde and Poyer in one year is too much and we need a vet who knows the system. Yes, I agree we need to get younger. They were fairly high on Tre coming back, possibly on a reduced salary and they said achilles injuries are no longer as significant as they once were. The podcast was enlightening. They convinced me that there's a chance Diggs was hurt and his playing style ages well so cutting him is not worth the hit this season or next. I could go either way on that if we sign someone in free agency and a draft a potential WR1 in the draft. They said the Bills cap in a couple years would actually be in a good place so pushing dollars into the future, as bad as it sounds, isn't horrible given our future cap space. And another notable comment from the podcast: Von's $120 million contract only had a $5 million hit the first year; so we could potentially sign someone decent and not have a big hit the first year. One guy pushed for Houston's Johnathan Greenard if he's not re-signed. Another guy cited 4 WRs in free agency (Samuels, Bourne, maybe Ridley and a fourth guy...) and he said he thinks one of the four will miss out just because of the market on the $10 million pay day and maybe he could be available at an affordable rate. Chin as safety was also talked about.... I'm Ok with a free agent mini splash at DE, DT and maybe safety if we keep Diggs and get a stud WR in the first.

I knew all that handsomeness wasn't natural. Maybe he can become a Bollywood star now.

It's not a binary argument: Josh needs a new number 1 WR AND the D needs to play better at the end of games, and this is dictated by both personnel and coaching. But if the brass takes a WR no earlier than the 3rd round this year, that's criminal.

You didn't quote the word that I italicized: consistent. This year the Bills offense was not consistent enough. I want to see that plus a field stretcher and true number 1 alpha receiver. I'm not saying we need to devote a first and second rounder to this, but take a real traits alpha guy who can stretch the field and win 50-50 battles. We haven't had that in a while. Then get a DE and safety and all the rest on D.

The problem is, the Bills have been allocating more resources in the draft and free agency to defense. And it's not working. So do we just continue to do the same thing? I don't have to roll out the old Einstein quote here. I'd suggest the problem might not be throwing more resources at the D, but different late-game coaching. And, in fairness, the D was missing key players this year. But let's turn this offense into a consistent juggernaut instead funneling most of the assets into the D.

I'm not a college fan and have limited interest in QB prospects given the Bills' situation, but I like your writing style and voice. Looking forward to your WR write-ups...

The Pats might have been a perennial roadblock to the playoffs but not a championship as we were never good enough during their dynasty years. The Chiefs are stopping our currently very good team and potentially first-ballot HOF QB from going the Super Bowl. And much of this Mahomes idolatry is tethered to a comparison to Josh Allen with the latter being pronounced excellent but not quite as good. So the Chiefs success is far more vexing to me as they are preventing Josh and the Bills from winning championships and being acknowledged as a great team/QB (some people see Josh that way but many don't because of playoff failures. I would love for the 24 Chiefs to lose Jones, see Kelce start aging more, and maybe lose a couple more key defensive pieces. And for the Bills to get a weapon on offense in the draft. That would be a start to changing the narrative and my hate for the Chiefs.

Really bad look. Lesser players would be benched. But Kelce, especially later in the game, helped win a third Super Bowl for Reid. If he wasn't a first-ballot HOF player, he would be severely disciplined for that. But that's the trade-off: do you put up with BS and a lack of respect like that if the player is great and helps you win. Reid wants the win more than the respectful behaviour. We saw with Toney that lesser players will be benched. But it's perfomance based. I think Kelce is a meathead but he's a damn good football player and helps win championships. Hopefully, his decline accelerates in 2024.

Mahomes is as cool as ice in clutch moments. I hate that he keeps winning and my friends were laughing at me at how upset I got with the 49ers losing (not a team I routinely support) but I have to admit it... When it's crunch time and the game, the season, the championship is on the line, if I can pick one player to make it happen, it's Mahomes. I hate it but that's the truth.

So he's run better, and especially inside, than many of us expected. But he's dropped a few more than expected. Given his college history (just going by scouting reports as I don't watch college ball) he was better than average as a pass-catching back. In totality, it's correctable as he has a history of catching well, and nothing to worry about. As Bills fans we have some causes for concern but back isn't one of them.

Given his leaner frame, I had zero expectations for him running north-south but he did this surprisingly well and I saw him drag defenders after getting engaged. Very happy for a late 2nd round pick. Is he Derick Henry? No, but he's got juice, good vision, more power than expected and is a catching threat (despite some drops; as someone said, he's a running back not a WR and he's got the league's hardest thrower passing him the ball). Get a bruiser late in the draft or in FA and we're good.

Could this be related to our overall lack of YAC?

Super stars and dominant teams get officiating biases in their favor. It may be simple human nature on the refs' part. I would be shocked if the commissioner told the reffing crews en masses to let certain teams or stars do better. But maybe there's a more subtle mandate something like "in the NFL we need our sill and star players to shine and we don't want officiating to get in the way of high-end football play." Too many people and players would need to be involved for outright "scripts." At that point either a player directed by conscience, greed, or attention would spill the beans.

Jones. Maybe Floyd but while he started hot I think he faded down the stretch so at this age, not sure...