BillsFanForever19

It's Khalil Shakir. I imagine Dalton Kincaid will get the majority of reps at the Slot. But Shakir will still get a lot of reps there cycling in for Kincaid in certain packages and playing there when Kincaid is occasionally lining up with his hand in the ground. Harty and Sherfield are outside depth behind Diggs and Davis. Harty will be moved around a lot as a gadget guy depending on the package.

That's not going to happen. We did that before he came here and he had to work his tail off to get us out of cap hell when he first arrived. He's not going to turn around and do the same thing himself. A big part of Beane getting hired by Pegula was that he was going to be smarter about these things then his predecessors were. He's said time and again that his vision is to keep the team from ever having to do a tear down by acting reckless for a year or two. Whether you agree with it or not, it's foolish to expect him to do otherwise. As long as Josh is playing at a high level, we are always in the window. Teams have done it with less than what we've had this year with a QB catching fire in a given year. In a vacuum, Ray could have been a nothing signing. But in the context of Von scheduled to not miss any time and at worst, a game or two, having Groot on the other side, still having Epenesa and Basham, bringing back Kingsley Jonathan, re-signing Shaq, claiming Cline, and now signing Ray - at a time where we have 88 players on the roster when he said he was planning on not bringing 90 to camp, 9 DE's already on the roster - the signing of Ray represents something else. He said he was unable to sign a DE post draft. Reportedly, we offered Yannick an incentive deal he turned down. This makes it pretty obvious he tried to get one or more from the list and couldn't do it under the constraints we have. He said he would probably look to add "a" (singular) DE before Camp and was "kicking the tires on Ray" as that possibility. He then signed Ray. I really don't see a 10th DE coming in. And I hope you don't throw another child like temper tantrum and fill the thread with "little baller Beane" comments if this is it like you did in the Hopkins thread.

Oh, I see. You're one of those people that thinks no matter how many countless moves have already been done to finesse the cap already, that there is no limit. That the cap isn't real at all. Gotcha. No. They don't have money. As it is, we have to come up with a few million for the Practice Squad and emergency money for midseason. Extending someone takes both the team wanting to do it as well as the player and both agreeing on the price. Releasing a player to save money requires their contract to be written in a way that releasing them will save money and not cost us money. Trading players would involve someone wanting a player, their contract, and us being cool losing them. There isn't really a player that a team would want to trade for and we'd save enough cap space for, that wouldn't cause a significant hole. If it's just that simple and Beane was comfortable with any of those things to get more money, he'd have done it already. Beane doesn't do these types of moves just to get money to spend. He has to want to make those moves. And it's pretty clear he's done all the moving around he's comfortable with. We already have NINE Defensive Ends on the roster. We usually keep 5 tops. Much like your complaints about WR, he decided to claim Cline and sign Ray within the past week or so to address the DE position. You not thinking it's enough isn't going to make him add a 3rd. The roster sits at 88 of 90 right now as is. Which is more than he said he wanted to go into Camp with. If someone's added, I doubt it's a 10th DE.

Melvin Ingram? Yes. It's been reported/rumored we offered Yannick an incentive laden deal and he turned it down. What that says to me is we weren't offering anyone anything more than minimum up front and the ability to make more in uncapped incentives. Which falls in line with our cap situation. It's easy to say "we can extend a DT and get some money". But a.) That DT would have to want to sign an extension b.) We'd have to want to extend that DT and c.) Beane would have to be agreeable to their price. Short of that, there is no more money to be had. We scraped the well with restructures time and time again just to do what we've done already. If there were more to be done that Beane was comfortable with, he'd have done it. After signing our picks and the small moves we made, we have no more money. Incentive laden deals aren't going to cut it for a Yannick or an Ingram. From the sounds of his presser that I quoted in the same prior post, it seems the people we wanted weren't agreeable to what we could offer. So Ray it was. That's wishful thinking to me. Logic says we don't have any money. And that we already have 9 DE's on our Roster. Including our entire depth chart from the 53 last season. Von and the staff are all in lockstep of saying he's unlikely to miss any time or at worst a game or two. So adding a 10th at this point seems unlikely. If that were to happen, they wouldn't have bothered to do all of re-signing Shaq, claiming Cline, and signing Ray. And like I said Beane's presser seemed pretty clear that he tried to get deals done with some of the big names on the list and they weren't agreeable to what we could offer. Which is reportedly little to nothing up front and everything in incentives - on a team that has Von and Rousseau locked in as starters.

I know you probably don't want to hear it, but I really think between the waiver claim for Kameron Cline and the Shane Ray signing - that's it for DE. At his presser yesterday when asked about Shane Ray, Beane said: "You know, we didn't hit on any DE's after the Draft as far as guys to sign. And that's why we were excited to get the kid Kameron Cline last week that we claimed from Indy. And then you know we probably, at some point may look to add a DE between now and the start of Camp. And so we're just instead of doing a workout, here's a guy out there, let's bring him in here for a couple days, again test his knowledge, test his skill set, see where he's at, and um ya know, we call it kicking the tires" So to review, he said he tried to get something done with at the DE position, but couldn't. Whether he's talking about UFA's or UDFA's is unclear. But he first claimed Kameron Cline. He said he wanted to add "a" DE between now and the start of Camp (implying one more). Then he "kicked the tires" on Shane Ray and liked what he saw enough to sign him. That's two signings at the position in the past week or so at DE. Combined with what he already have, I would be shocked if we added another. You're not happy with how Beane chose to address a position in Free Agency or the Draft? This is my shocked face. We started the Offseason 18.5m over the cap with 24 FA's to fill, plus come up with money for Draft picks, plus Practice Squad, plus spending money for emergencies during the season. He's done a great job doing what he's done. If you were expecting "I've heard of him!" superstars across the board - you were deluding yourself and letting yourself down by getting crazy expectations.

I mean, I personally think it makes perfect sense. Gilliam plays limited reps in a hybrid FB role. I think he can take on both his limited role and Morris' limited role, justifying his 2 year 4.6m extension he signed last season until 2025. I also think Morris is unlikely to be signed to a 53 following cut downs and less likely to be poached than Murray, if placed on the Practice Squad. We also have TE Zach Davidson, a 6'7" former 5th Round pick of the Vikings, who we signed to the Practice Squad at the beginning of last season and has remained on the team through a Futures Contract. Providing insurance on the Practice Squad in the unlikely event we were to lose Morris at TE. Likewise, we have little to no insurance at RB. Ultimately, in Morris, we're talking about a guy who averaged 13 snaps a game on Offense last season, almost exclusively as a Blocker, getting 10 catches on 11 targets for 102 yards and 1 TD. He played more on Special Teams, but we've also added a number of Special Teamers and retained most of our core. I don't see him as irreplaceable as you do given all of this. But we can agree to disagree on that.

That's fair. I don't think that's crazy at all to surmise. Morris was #54 on my roster. I think what swayed me was a video from the Cover 1 guys talking about Kincaid being Drafted not being good for Morris. I think Gilliam could cover both roles and get more reps, making the contract he signed last season a worthwhile investment. Reggie Gilliam started his career here as a TE. Even as a FB, he's sort of a FB/TE hybrid. And with the addition of Harris, who's a very good blocking Back and a Power Runner - on run downs you could put Gilliam on the line as the 3rd Blocking TE, who can catch some passes. Morris plays on Special Teams. But we've added Sherfield, Shorter, and Williams to play mainly Teams (to go with core guys like Matakevitch, Neal, Bernard, and others). So we may be good there as well. Again, I don't think it's crazy to surmise that Murray is released and Morris stays. I just think with the general makeup of the build of McBeane's rosters that they wouldn't feel comfortable dressing Cook, Harris, and Hines every week as they will and not have something they're comfortable with dressing the following week in the likely event that one of them goes down. I also feel that with Beane calling up Murray's people and getting the deal done on Draft Day, facilitating a Trade Down in lieu of Drafting a RB in the 6th (who I think would have been on the 53) speaks some volumes. I think they liked what Murray did last season and want a 4th guy they can rely on instead of grabbing whomever off the scrap heap, if one of our core 3 guys go down. I also think that when push comes to shove - the likelihood of a team giving Morris a spot on their 53 after cutdowns is pretty low. And that he'd be less likely to be poached off the Practice Squad then Murray would be, at a generally league wide war torn position like RB. Murray was the go to guy for teams last year who had injuries at the RB position. Signing to two different teams and being activated to play because of league wide injuries at the position.

Definitely worthy of posting a thread.

Pretty sure the plan is to start whomever wins the battle between Bernard, Klein, Williams, and Dodson. But that the "starter" won't be playing all downs. Because whoever the starter is won't be at the level of Edmunds, we'll probably be cycling in different MLB'ers to keep someone fresh there. Also, I imagine there will be times when Milano is playing the MLB spot with someone like Williams alongside him at the OLB spot. And there will surely be packages with Rapp on the field further up the field. The long and short of it is between the other players we have on the field, 3-4 guys that can be cycled in, the strength of the D-Line and the secondary, and creative scheming - I don't think MLB is remotely as big of a worry to the front office and coaching staff as it is fans.

Shorter will be on the roster as the 6th WR on the 53. Barkley will have the same role as last year, he'll be the 3rd QB on the Practice Squad. Josh and Kyle will be the only QB's on the 53. Hines is a lock. We just gave him 4 million dollars upfront in a restructure to keep him. I see Murray being here on the 53 as we always keep 4 and to try and keep him on the PS would be to lose him when teams get injuries at RB. He wouldn't stay on the PS if playing time and more money was available elsewhere. He'll be this year's TJ Yeldon or Matt Breida "break glass in case of emergency" RB4. To me, the 53 is pretty clear. A couple decent guys may be released. But "so many good players that the Bills will have to let go" and "teams like the Pats and NYG will be salivating waiting for cutdown day knowing all of the talent the Bills will have to let go" is an overstatement. To give you an idea, when I did mine, the biggest releases were Quintin Morris, Baylon Spector, and Cam Lewis - with Tommy Doyle starting on PUP. Other additions at DE or OT may change some things (making Boettger and/or Basham on the outside looking in, Basham being a trade candidate). But right now I see it like: QB - Allen, Allen RB - Cook, Harris, Hines, Murray FB/TE - Gilliam WR - Diggs, Davis, Harty, Shakir, Sherfield, Shorter TE - Kincaid, Knox OL - Dawkins, McGovern, Morse, Torrence, Brown Bates, Edwards, Quessenberry, Boettger DE - Miller, Rousseau, Lawson, Epenesa, Basham DT - Oliver, Jones, Ford, Phillips, Settle LB - Milano, Klein, Bernard, Williams, Dodson, Matakevitch CB - White, Elam, Johnson, Benford, Jackson, Neal S - Hyde, Poyer, Rapp, Hamlin ST - Bass, Martin, Ferguson PUP - Doyle But yeah, nothing crazy being released that would have teams salivating.

From Brandon Beane's presser today regarding possible DT extensions: "You know me well, ya know, we've found a way to sometimes do an extension or two, ya know, in Training Camp. So maybe we look at it at that point, see where the guys are at - who's all in, who's looking good, and if there's a chance to get one extended, we might look to do that then" Seems he's not going to do that until he sees the guys in Camp, takes a look at them, and talks to them and their people. Takes two to tango with extensions. It isn't as simple as just saying "extend this guy and sign this guy". Maybe Daquan isn't interested in signing an extension before hitting the market. Maybe he wants more than Beane is offering right now But Beane isn't the type to do an extension simply to sign someone else. Yannick is going to get a gig before Training Camp. Beane's also not the type to make an offer and then double back and offer substantially more. Seems to me he may want another Edge. But it will have to be at his price of an incentive laden deal. Somebody is going to have to settle for that and we're going to get a steal. But it won't be Yannick. We made our offer, he said no. We'll wait and move on to the next guy who will take it.

The Cover 1 guys (and your boy ECB) talked about hearing that the Bills offered an incentive laden deal to Yannick Ngakoue and that he declined. Which doesn't surprise me. He can get a guaranteed contract from someone. But if true, it goes to show what we're looking to do and that someone else is more likely. As I said before, I'd keep my eye on someone like Justin Houston, Robert Quinn, Jadeveon Clowney, or Carlos Dunlap having to settle for that kind of deal.

I watched Josh with Kyle Brandt yesterday. There was a moment that could mean nothing, but raised my eyebrow a bit, given the rumors. Kyle was asking him about keeping mementos. Josh in his answer said: "It's good to have keepsakes. I'll probably keep it in storage somewhere, and hopefully show it to my kids someday. I'm sure they'll be pumped about it, (said very quickly) if I ever have kids... um, but uh... which I hope to have kids. But, yes... it'd be something for them" Again, could mean nothing. It could have been he realized the rumors floating around and his discussion of kids could be read into (like this) and it made him nervous. But it seemed like a bit of an overcorrection on a subject he hasn't really broached before: From 20:38 to 21:09 -

Maybe before we renegotiated Nyheim Hines deal and gave him millions up front to keep him. Maybe before we signed Damien Harris. Maybe before we signed Latavius Murray. Now? No way. We're set at RB and Cook is going to command money we don't have.

You're talking about Outside CB 5 as if it's a sure thing. Is it impossible we carry 7 CB's? No. But the magic number is usually 6 CB's on the 53, period. 4 Outside, 2 Nickel. Ingram or McMichael were never making this squad.

Again, you're looking at Kincaid wrong. He's a TE in name only. He's actually a Slot WR, much like Kelce is in KC. Kincaid and Harty will take the pressure off of Davis that existed last season. Shakir getting the training wheels taken off as well. If Davis is struggling, Harty will cut into his reps. And I expect Diggs, Kincaid, and Davis to be on the field most downs. Kincaid can easily be the #2 option to Josh and at the very least will require more coverage, taking coverage away from Davis. Kincaid and Harty represent the insurance to Davis' underperformance last season. We were never going to Draft a Receiving weapon in the 1st Round as we had AND make another massive investment in another weapon - with Diggs and Davis here and with having signed Harty and Sherfield. Long story short, with the additions of Kincaid, Harty, Sherfield, and Shorter (with Shakir given more reps) - the Receiving core as a whole is in MUCH better shape than it was last season.

Beasley's done here. Kincaid is a TE in name only and is actually a Big Slot. Deonte Harty will be playing Outside and Inside. Khalil Shakir is going to have the training wheels taken off and will be getting more Slot work. The slot is covered and crowded. Beasley was a Hail Mary in the slot late last season after Jamison Crowder went down, Isaiah McKenzie was underperforming, and McDermott wanted to bring Shakir along slowly in his Rookie year. He performed okay. But he wasn't his old self. That's why we addressed the position with Kincaid and Harty. There's no place for Beasley, unless he wants to be a Practice Squad guy. Our 53 WR core is set in stone already.

I mean, unless we're for sure moving Christian Benford to Safety - there really isn't a place for him here anymore. We generally keep 6 CB's on the 53, 4 Outside and 2 Nickel, and they're pretty much set in stone right now with: Tre'Davious White Kaiir Elam Taron Johnson (Nickel) Dane Jackson Christian Benford Siran Neal (Nickel) Even moving Benford to Safety creates a bit of a logjam there as we generally keep 4 there. And we have 4 already there with: Micah Hyde Jordan Poyer Taylor Rapp Damar Hamlin Long story short, I think the Secondary as a whole is one of the deepest positions we have and is probably set. If we were to bring him in, we'd have to be keeping 11 in the secondary - as I don't see any of the players listed above being released. And also, he'd be depth and not getting much play time. So I'd imagine he'd want to go to other teams first, if he has any other options.

Thank you! I'm not saying she isn't a liar. But I'm not comfortable saying nothing could have possibly happened to her simply based on her "acting like a slut", as many have so eloquently put it. As you said, she could have acted like that, but if she said "no" at any time with anyone and if they didn't, recorded or not, she was raped. Regardless of how she was acting with others. That's where I'm uncomfortable with the totality of calling her a liar simply based on other instances that happened throughout the night and my questioning of whether or not the videos they do have are of THE alleged incident or of others.

Omg, I understand that. What I'm trying to get across here is that just because she consented with one or more other people doesn't mean she consented with anyone and everyone whenever and however they wanted that night. That's why I'm asking if the videos they have are of the alleged gang rape. Just because they have video of other encounters of her consenting doesn't mean she couldn't have been possibly raped by someone else in a different encounter? Is the video(s) of the supposed 3 man encounter or are they of other acts. Promiscuous acts and statements with others doesn't discount the possibility of non consensual acts with someone (or multiple someone's) else. That's where I'm uncomfortable with the verbage and mentality. "She was literally asking for it" doesn't make physically taking advantage of someone okay. Her words and mentality could have easily made her a prime target because "who would believe her?". It's Law and Order SVU 101.

It says they have videos of her having encounters, in which her jewelry was in tact. It does not make clear whether or not those encounters include the multi-man gang rape she alleged to have happened.

I was asking if the videos they have include the alleged "gang rape" incident or if they were of other encounters she had. What i'm saying is just because she said those things to one person and was consenting to one or more people, doesn't mean she was openly consenting to literally anyone and everyone in whatever fashion they deemed fit at the party, whenever they wanted it. That's where i'm uncomfortable with the "she was acting like a slut and asking for it" mentality floating around. Regardless of what she was saying to others, it doesn't mean she was saying "please, literally anyone here, do whatever you want, whenever you want with me". She could act promiscuous with others and still be raped by someone else (or multiple others), in the same night. One does not preclude the other from possibly happening.

A couple things: 1.) The prosecutors claim they have witness' they say he left the party before the incident. Her attorney claims that the witnesses are lying to cover for a friend. Pinging his cell phone would clear all of this up, but that hasn't been revealed as of yet. Hopefully it is so there is no question and he is completely exonerated. 2.) Yes, there is video of her acting promiscuous and consenting in other acts. But do we know if there's video of the alleged rape? A woman can sleep with multiple guys in the same night and say and do promiscuous things all night long. But that doesn't make her fair game for anything with everyone who wants it for the entire night. She could have consented to things and not consented to others in the same night. I'm bothered by the whole "she was acting like a sl-t, she obviously asked for it" mentality that's been floating around this thread.

Judging from this one, your posts were probably deleted because you can't make a point without using offensive, derogatory verbage.

There wasn't. According to the rules of the Exempt list, if the incident occurred before you became a member of the NFL and before you've played a game in the league, you cannot be put on the Exempt list. Our options were to keep him or cut him. I thought that was a terrible technicality and another shame in a list of damn shames in this situation.