Cash

I don't mind Sal C - he seems like a nice guy - but sometimes his analysis is a little underwhelming. He seems to be implying that Ivory is being brought in to compete and might theoretically lose out to a different FA signing and/or a rookie and be cut. But if the reports are true that Ivory's contract has $3.25 million guaranteed, there's virtually no way he gets cut before 2019. Follow the money. The Bills are currently #1 in 2018 cap $ at RB with only 3 players under contract. Chris Ivory is currently the #21 RB in average salary, and should wind up around #28 or so after free agency and the draft. That's a lot more than just being brought in to compete - he is our primary backup RB until proven otherwise. Now, I'm sure that if he sucks (hopefully not), McDermott will be willing to bench or cut him, which is good. Other than Tolbert, he hasn't shown much favoritism so far, and even Tolbert eventually lost most of his role before injuries put him back in the lineup. (And a lot of the problems with Tolbert might be on Rico - I don't think either Tolbert or McDermott had the idea of lining Tolbert out wide and throwing him a quick slant.)

Thanks! I was really surprised his was that high - I was expecting it to be much lower. Selective memory, I guess.

Chris Ivory: 19 fumbles on 1206 touches (1112 carries + 94 receptions) - 1.57% fumble rate Thurman: 50 fumbles on 3349 touches (2877 carries + 472 receptions) - 1.49% fumble rate Emmitt: 61 fumbles on 4924 touches (4409 carries + 515 receptions) - 1.24% fumble rate If Emmitt had fumbled at Ivory's rate, he would've had 77 fumbles in his career instead of 61. (Only about 2-3 fumble difference for Thurman.) I also checked on a couple other RBs that came to mind: LeGarrette Blount: 1.22% fumble rate Antowain Smith: 1.30% fumble rate Fred Jackson: 1.69% fumble rate Marshawn Lynch: 1.07% fumble rate LeSean McCoy: 0.84% fumble rate (!) I generally agree that it's not THAT big a deal. But I think it's a valid criticism, because fumbles are a lot easier to overlook if they're backed up by HOF production. Much harder to swallow for a guy who's getting you 3 yards and a cloud of dust.

Chris Ivory is definitely nowhere near the 21st best RB in the NFL. Probably closer to 21st best backup than 21st best overall. Granted, he'll get bumped down by some actual free agents, but I still expect him to be a little overpaid next year. Not by a huge amount, but these things add up. I didn't realize he had so many fumbles - yikes! Looks like 2016 was the big problem - 5 fumbles on 117 carries compared to 2 on 112 last year. But he's had at least 2 fumbles every year since 2013, and it's not like he's had a lot of carries in those years, either. I'm downgrading my rating from "not bad" to "kinda bad but not terrible".

Meh. You could do worse, so I don't mind this, but I'm not excited. I was a big Chris Ivory fan when he was with the Saints, but he's 30 now and IMO in decline. Yards per carry last 4 years: 3.4, 3.8, 4.3, 4.1. I'll be surprised if he's over 4 for us next year. Pluses: He's a real NFL player who knows how to play RB Not huge money Could serve as a decent goal-line back? (I haven't seen him in that role in a while, so not sure if he's actually good at it or just seems like he would be) Doesn't count against comp pick formula Less pressure to draft a RB in 3rd round or higher, but still have the option to do so if a great prospect is there Minuses: Best days are likely behind him, not clear how much he has left in the tank Money is still way higher than that of a 4th/5th round pick, and there'll be at least 1 of those who's better than Ivory this year All in all, not bad. I'm with others who think that he likely takes most of Tolbert's carries. The question becomes, does that mean Tolbert is gone, or does the team ask him to switch to FB and cut the higher-paid DiMarco? I hope we don't intend to carry Tolbert as basically a mascot. I'm sure he's great for the locker room/culture and all that, but he makes too much money not to contribute on the field. I'm okay with him as FB if that's the route they go.

He also had a pretty decent career... certainly disappointing for a #7 overall pick, but people act like he was just worthless. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MamuMi20.htm 8 sacks in year 2 (as a 16-game starter on a 10-6 team), 8.5 sacks in year 5 after missing year 4 with a knee injury. I'm not sure why he stopped playing after 6 years (doesn't seem to be injury related), but he was an okay player during that time. I'd gladly take him over Aaron Maybin or Erik Flowers.

Very interesting! I haven't seen this stat before - any idea if this has been done for previous draft classes? I'd love to see how well it correlates to NFL success.

Has the full audio of either interview been posted anywhere yet?

Pretty good evaluation, OP.

I generally like PFF, but if this is the outcome, I have to question their methodology. Our O-line was not good at pass blocking this year. Take the Tyrod flame war out of the equation for a minute - how did the pass blocking look with Peterman under center? Our O-line had some nice plays in pass protection here and there, but there were way too many times when a guy came free almost right away, and several whole games where the opposing D was in our backfield seemingly the whole game. Again, I don't know what PFF is looking at or using as their criteria that translates those results into #2 in the league.

These Madden-generated rookie names get more unrealistic every year.

Well, yeah, of course. We would all prefer 30/10 over 14/4. But that's not really on the table. Here's the QBs this year who came at all close to 30/10: 1. Russell Wilson - 34/11 2. Carson Wentz - 33/7 3. Tom Brady - 32/8 4. Matthew Stafford - 29/10 5. Jared Goff - 28/7 6. Philip Rivers - 28/10 7. Alex Smith - 26/5 There were 5 in 2016, and Brady was the only repeat. 30/10 is an incredibly unrealistic standard, especially if you're hoping for it to happen more than once. You're basically saying you'd prefer a top 5-7 QB over Tyrod. Duh, so would everyone. I'm all for getting a top 5 QB, but it's very hard. EDIT: Also, with all the discussion around Foles in this thread, I think it's worth laying out his TD/INT numbers for his career: 2012 - 6/5 2013 - 27/2 regular season, 2/0 postseason, 29/2 total 2014 - 13/10 2015 - 7/10 2016 - 3/0 2017 - 5/2 regular season, 6/1 playoffs - 11/3 total It's almost as if the same player can be better or worse depending on the coaching staff and talent around him.

I don't really disagree with your main point, but here's why I stand by what I originally said: How many times in recent history has the Super Bowl been won by a QB making roughly top 5 money who wasn't arguably a top 5 QB that year? Only one I can think of is Peyton Manning in his last year, which is a weird situation - he had been a top 5 QB up until that year, and had definitely been worth the high-end $$$. Maybe Eli in his 2nd Super Bowl win? I don't have time to look up his contract details, but it easily could've been in the range I'm talking about So basically, what's the point of having a Flacco type who can make the plays under pressure, if he costs so much that you'll never be able to get him to those pressure situations? I think you're better off trying to find the next Flacco than paying an existing one in the hopes he takes a Rich Gannon leap.

All of these teams overpaying for top 15 (but not top 5) QBs will eventually regret it. I don't agree with this whole "you have a QB or you have nothing" mentality that's so pervasive these days. I'd rather have a bad-but-not-horrendous QB at a cheap price (Josh McCown?) than a good-but-not-great QB at an expensive price (Smith? Cousins? Flacco? Stafford?). Basically, I either want a guy so good he can drag a bunch of stiffs to the Super Bowl (i.e., Aaron Rodgers, prime Peyton Manning, etc.), or a guy who comes cheap enough to build a Super Bowl contender around him. If there was a real QB middle class, where you could sign a guy like Flacco or Dalton for like $14 million/year, then I'd be up for that as well, but that doesn't really exist right now.

Same here. Was also very similar to the Bills' attempts to hold leads this year. In both cases, it's hard to truly know how much of that is on the playcaller (Hackett/Rico) and how much is on the conservative head coach (Marrone/McDermott). For me, the damning part is not being conservative, it's being hyper-predictable. Every 1st down for the Jags was a run from shotgun. If those were working, that's okay, but they weren't. So do something else. If a coach can only protect a lead with players that get him 4 yards a carry even when the defense knows it's coming, that coach is worthless at protecting leads. You or I could win in that situation.

Unrestricted Free Agents QB Joe Webb - keep if cheap enough to cut in camp RB Mike Tolbert - let walk RB Travaris Cadet - keep if cheap enough to cut in camp RB Taiwan Jones - keep if cheap enough to cut in camp WR Deonte Thompson - keep WR Jordan Matthews - let walk WR Brandon Tate - let walk WR Jeremy Butler - who? OT Seantrel Henderson - keep if cheap enough to cut in camp DL Kyle Williams - up to him DL Cedric Thornton - let walk LB Preston Brown - let walk? Depends on who they can get instead. LB Ramon Humber - let walk CB EJ Gaines - would like to keep, but might be too $$. He'll probably want to be paid as though he'll play 16 games. CB Leonard Johnson - keep CB Shareece Wright - let walk S Colt Anderson - headed for IR S Shamarko Thomas - keep Exclusive Rights Free Agents TE Nick O’Leary - keep TE Logan Thomas - keep DE Eddie Yarbrough - keep CB Lafayette Pitts - who?

Guys, I know you hate Tyrod. That's fine, go ahead and hate him. Knock yourself out. But enough with the Peterman nonsense. He's a 5th-round rookie who has looked bad every time he's played a meaningful game. (I guess he was okay in Saints garbage time, but that wasn't exactly meaningful by then.) He lasted till the 5th round for a reason. Maybe he eventually won't suck. I hope so! But right now, he does suck. You might as well have a hypothetical scenario where McDermott pulled you out of the stands to throw the winning TD pass.

I think he should be, but I voted that he'll stay. I hope that McDermott tries to upgrade that spot in the offseason. My thought is that unless McDermott's idea of the perfect guy is available, he'll go for continuity, but another year like this will provoke a firing regardless. I am very encouraged by McDermott's press conference today - saying he's unhappy with the offense overall, not pinning it all on Tyrod (he's part of the problem, not the whole problem), and not giving any sort of vote of confidence to Dennison. I feel like Dennison basically needs elite talent across the board, or at least at QB, for his offense to be successful. That could be worse; he could be so bad that he'd fail even with elite talent. But I'd like it to be better. People who want Dennison to come back: where do you think he ranks out of the 32 offensive coordinators? Personally, I would think he's somewhere in the 20s.

I was just thinking today about how often Marrone said he wanted to "smell the breath" of his players in his first few press conferences. That's weird, dude. Don't go around smelling people's breath!

I'll eat that crow! I predicted 5-11 and I've never been happier to be wrong!!!

AHHHHHHH

One clarification: #2 still gets us into the playoffs if we TIE rather than WIN. So there is potentially value to McD's hyper-conservative OT strategy if it comes to that. But a tie doesn't help us in scenario #1, so if the Bungles look like they're pulling off the upset, it's probably best to just go all-out for the win.

I said keep things the same, but if Watson hadn't gotten hurt, I probably would've said to pick him. He was great for like a 4-5 game stretch, but might lose a lot of athleticism once he comes back, plus you can't be sure he would've kept up that performance. RG3 had the best rookie season of any QB ever, but that doesn't mean much now. If the Bills offered Tre White and KC's #1 next year for Watson, any chance Houston would take that deal? No, and I wouldn't blame them. But I also wouldn't kill the Bills for turning it down on their end.

After watching the press conference, I'm now almost certain that he really was playing for the tie. When asked about the possibility of a tie, he talked about how 2 different teams he's been on have had ties, and both were beneficial to making the playoffs. When asked about a tie's impact to playoff scenarios, he made it sound like he's an all-seeing psychic who considers every potential butterfly effect before making a decision. This is apparently why he needed a timeout - I guess you can't consider 10,000+ possibilities in just 40 seconds, but 1 minute 40 seconds works just fine? However, he later said that he doesn't/won't look at specific playoff scenarios unless we're still in it with 1 game to go, so I think the first take was just coach bluster. Bottom line (just my opinion, but I think it's right): McDermott was hoping to get lucky and get the win somehow, but mostly was focused on not losing. Viewed through that lens, punting makes sense, and so does setting that timeout on fire.

Don't confuse process with results.