BillsVet

Essentially my point and what I've observed elsewhere: those outside of the union's executive leadership are increasingly marginalized and treated like chaff. NBA franchises aren't going to be crippled by a contract like that, not when the team cap is 155M next year. You're advocating that, because risk comes when an athlete sustains an injury and/or production declines it's proof-positive that guaranteed contracts are bad. They're not. Risk cannot be totally eliminated and teams make decisions that go awry. It's part of life. Taking this back to the Bills, whenever Beane has wanted to cut someone's pay, the player wound up being cut not long after. NFL players have less leverage than their NBA, MLB, and NHL counterparts in many instances and this is exemplified with other franchises. What I'm seeing here is people claim that guaranteed contracts would prompt teams to be hesitant to spend. I disagree. Teams still are under pressure to win as evidenced by the yearly HC carousel and have their own guaranteed income from revenue sharing. Teams are required to spend a certain percentage and would acquiesce...which would demand being more careful particularly in UFA. It's funny to discuss this because I was once vehemently pro-management and viewed players as typically the problem.

People missing the point. There's always going to be more salary concentrated in the hands of the fewer players who have skill sets that are better particularly at positions of high positional value. No one is demanding that interior OL or backup safeties get paid like top QB or WR. Still, if you're a union member, be it NFLPA, AFL-CIO, CSEA, whatever and the executive is working with management or offering token resistance on issues...the likely outcomes are going to be bad. Conflict in labor relations can be a good thing if both sides are strong and have differing viewpoints. What isn't good is to avoid all conflict and collude so that negotiations are easy...that typically ends with rank and file getting a bad contract.

Those data points obscure what is the economic reality in the NFL: a higher share of the cap is going to fewer players. It's not unexpected because the supply of excellent QBs, WRs, and pass rushers will always be in demand. And the model the NFL employs will pay them accordingly. Conversely, you can see it with RB's...they're largely not being paid (cue the person who points to Saquon Barkley) because their skill-set isn't as valuable. Besides, highlighting the decreased 2021 cap fails to consider the aberration that the pandemic was.

It's a big picture issue, so I get that some will gloss over it for this reason. Whole point is...the league and union are working together and someone stands to lose. Especially when you consider there are player safety issues with going to 17 and likely to 18 games. Or, with the increased cap, which all too often is weighted for a more limited group of players. Something has to give at some point.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/45705432/nflpa-head-works-firm-approved-invest-nfl Imagine being represented by a union where your executive director: 1. Works with management to ensure your pay is made less guaranteed than it could be. Then, agrees with management to keep an arbitrator's findings from becoming known to members that specifies this happened. 2. Receives a multi-million dollar compensation package representing your union while simultaneously doing outside work. When asked to resign from one part-time position, he refuses. 3. That outside work includes working for a private equity firm, albeit in another sector, that is likely to invest in NFL franchises. And, serves on 3 other boards and is paid by those companies as well. The NFLPA has gradually, since the death of Gene Upshaw, become more of partners with the NFL than anything else. At the same time, the search committee recommended this guy and it's their funeral for hiring him. I only highlight this situation because, at some point, the players' relationship with both the league and their executive/leadership will sour if it hasn't already. And that means what has been labor peace since 2012 will likely end. The current CBA doesn't expire until 2030, but at some point I expect there will be problems.

If the GM and HC never had the DL with the investment they've made there since 2017-18...then they're the problem, not the talent. They've emphasized DL almost every off-season since 2018...stands to reason they'd have figured it out by now. Few teams have alignment in HC and GM on resourcing this group. They don't get it right this season or they never will...from roster philosophy to scheme to coaching and everything before you get to who the players are.

PFF grading on a curve...that reflects who invests the most into their DL?

Fair or not, McDermott's legacy is 13 seconds unless he wins it all with Josh. It remains one of the most epic collapses in recent NFL history. And I don't care if one of the assistants botched something...it's on the HC to be prepared and McD is maybe a hair faster on the trigger than Jauron in-game (RIP).

Least you could do is send a Christmas card, but no. I'd even settle for a birthday card, but nada there too. LOL.

We're back to believing that known entities at both positions will return to form or dramatically improve performance. At DE, that's Bosa remaining healthy, Rousseau becoming consistent, and Oliver producing again. The unknown entities - Jackson and the young DT's perhaps could give them something, but it's less likely. Maybe the scheme gets adjusted and paired with improvements they are finding QBs more often. The WR's with Palmer, Samuel, and Moore are what they are at this point in their career. Shakir is still somewhat young, albeit a slot receiver. Coleman...maybe he makes a huge leap, but I wouldn't expect it. All in all...it's odd to see how they've approached the key positions. Nailed the QB, have a reliable LT, have continued to develop and draft CBs, but DE and WR have been unremarkable for different reasons. I would expect a defensive minded HC to understand what a good pass-rusher looks like...and neither he nor the GM have found them. And then there's the stubbornness both reflect about how WRs aren't that important to use premium assets on finding them.

Thankfully, McBeane are exonerated from the Coleman pick because team media told us it was Josh who wanted him. In all seriousness, if you're trying to motivate words alone typically don't get it done. Get some competition if the investment is as significant as they make it out to be.

Each team wants to be in a position to pay a top QB...and most do. It's just that most teams don't devote as many UFA cap dollars and draft picks to keeping a defense intact or re-building it so often because they don't compromise on that. Which makes the cost to invest in a WR1 on the market or taking one higher in the draft too high. Ever year since about 2021 they've justified their avoidance of WR with some weak excuse, but what it really shows is the defense is more important than the offense. And the cost is they can't draft or acquire a WR who is a clear WR1. As an example, I calculated that since 2021 they've invested about 63% of their draft capital on defense. That philosophy of defense over offense is squarely in focus even more this year than last. Because if it doesn't work out, as in a really good defense combined with Josh's ensemble cast of WRs, then they have nowhere to run.

Moving into (and paying for ) a new stadium in 2026, the desire to bring the draft and the SB to Buffalo...yeah, Hard Knocks is like a pre-req from a business standpoint. And now that we've been denied the "genius" the was Mr. Smithers, er Russ Brandon, I gotta believe TPegs loves/pushed for this. It'll drive up revenue, and team valuation with essentially free PR. Probably helps sell tickets while increasing new minority owner share revenue...in short it's perfect. OTOH, for an uber-control freak like McD I doubt he's elated at the news. And before people conflate that point by noting all NFL HC's are control freaks, well, McD takes it to another level on par with not needing a lab to make diamonds. He can manufacture them himself he's so tight.

Against KC, Buffalo faced 14 3rd down and 6 4th down situations. Should tell the story for those who can read it because that ain't a dominating offense Hondo. Especially not when you need to convert twice on 4th and goal with remarkable plays in the second half to stay in the game. Josh running usage, either sneaks, designed runs, or on scrambles continues to be heavy. In the 2024 playoffs Buffalo needed Josh running is 29 times in 3 games. If the offense is so good, why do they still need Josh putting himself in the line of fire? Why do they end up in short yardage so often for all those tush pushes? It's because the offense predictably struggled against good defenses when it mattered. The thing you fail to realize or plain refuse to admit is the running game supports the passing game. It's like having a good changeup mixed with a plus plus fastball. Buffalo doesn't really invest compared to their primary playoff competition with WRs, so we compensate by saying the running game is good. But it's not that big of a deal. If it were, they'd re-sign James Cook yesterday.

You gotta have a backup plan when the defense isn't stopping the offense. It's akin to a MLB pitcher without his + stuff finding a way to win regardless. In the NFL, the backup plan is being able to out-score the opponent, which this regime doesn't think is necessary. (Cue the scoring 30ppg regular season crowd). Both this HC and GM expect that all pistons will be firing on both sides of the ball in the biggest games of the year. Even with a workaholic HC and no major weaknesses on that defense they'll run into good offenses who can out-duel it. People should have seen that against Baltimore, where it took a +3 turnover advantage and a dropped 2 point conversion for Buffalo to barely hold on. The following week when the injuries happened, Buffalo lacked the offensive firepower to overwhelm the Chiefs...because they don't invest there like their best/likely playoff opponents do. They're all-in on the strategy for 2025, although perhaps with some schematic wrinkles. If it doesn't work and they bottom out in the Divisional/Championship game round again...then the current plan should be scrapped in favor of a Josh-centered team. Because it'll have proven their plan is insufficient after 6 seasons doing it their preferred way.

Elijah Moore and Josh Palmer aren't maximizing Josh's window?

Saw Brubeck at the Montreal Jazz Fest...man could he still play well into his late 80s.

Was it Desmond who wrote it?

The WR debate is really just a front in this larger debate over McBeane's philosophy. Should be clear after these past 5 off-seasons it's (1) defense, particularly the DL and secondary along with (2) having a strong OL since Josh proved they have the QB. WR is far down the priority list and Beane isn't about to debate that no matter what. They didn't change the philosophy after 2020 when Josh proved he was their starting QB. They didn't change it when Josh re-signed the following off-season. They didn't change it after trading Diggs, and I don't expect them to change it even if 2025's quantity WR approach v2.0 doesn't work. Either they prove it works or die trying and from the looks of it that group is here to stay.

Last year I recall frequent reference to Green Bay having used multiple picks in the RD2-5 range and how a RD1 pick wasn't necessary. That may be true (although GB used their first RD1 pick there in 20+ years), but the Packers have used one Day 1, four Day 2 and four Day 3 picks on WRs going back to 2021. That compared to Buffalo's one Day 2 and three Day 3 picks At this point it's almost Buffalo being defiant and bucking the trend that teams take WRs. It remains fair, therefore, to highlight the disparity with other teams because it's a position of importance, particularly the boundary receivers. And to your point...yes, having them on rookie deals provides a benefit. The Bills need to do that not only at WR, but across their roster as re-signing all your own is nice in theory, but costly.

The personnel planning on defense compared to offense is such a stark contrast. They went DT and DE because their depth there will thin out real fast after 2025. Yet, at WR there's never been much planning ahead. They can get out of Samuel's deal after this season, Palmer after 2026, which leaves only Coleman and Shakir long-term. They have little in development unless you count a guy like Shavers who has been waived after his last 2 camps and put on the PS. But they're here at WR today because it wasn't a priority, as others have mentioned for 2021, 2022, and 2023. Taking Kincaid was a backup plan when the WRs were essentially gone his draft year. Coleman was a double-trade down. Right GB...it's not that they don't have them...it's that they don't plan to continuously improve the position as they do the secondary, DL, and even the LBs.

He averages less than 30 yards of total offense a game. You really want to die on this hill?

Define effective. Because based on the objective evidence below, he's a journeyman RB who does well in certain situations and most certainly is not an every-down player. If he were, he wouldn't be the 28th highest paid player on the team at less than 2M this season. Key UFA's tend to make far more. Nice try Hondo.

At least Gettleman and Hurney used 4 picks (2 1sts and 2 2nds) from 2013-2020. And Hurney was taking guys who were separating unlike Gettleman did in 2014 and 2015. I mean, are they really so much in lock-step with that philosophy or can they think for themselves at this point? The league changes a lot and if they're still adhering to what their former bosses were doing 5-10 years ago that bodes poorly for the future.

Ty Johnson? A 3rd down back, aka the easiest position to find in UFA and a part time one at that is proof positive? Sure dude. You got me on Leonard Floyd...1 player in the last 8 seasons who came in and produced some. Although, he was semi-invisible after the mid-way point of the season.