Random Babble From a Rabble

[BadLandsMeanie]

Ok so Im just a random non-premium seating, hot dog eating, man-on-the-streeting basic rabble fan.  

 

I just want to say a few things because I need to say something after that last few days. Those were stressy and exciting.

 

Being a Rabble is liberating because the things I say don't have to make sense, and I have no reputation to lose.

 

To all the press who made the mysterious tweets yesterday about the big, league shocking, stunning event that would be revealed, I won't forget that you did that. I think you got trolled too and didn't want to be left out, to seem like other knew and you didn't. So you made a mysterious tweet so you could say that you knew afterwards.

And I will remember the guys who kept their mouths shut because there was nothing to say.

 

I think it is cool that after that let down when nothing happened, that we were all delighted and stoked that we got AJ McCarron. We are pretty easy to please and so am I because I liked it too even though I know he is a 5th round drat pick who has been a backup and also nobody else took him. But I was happy go figure. (And a raspberry to you Mr Kelly the Dog!  )  What made it better is that late last night that my personal QB guru friend told me that we got the best available QB outside of Jimmy Garopolo.

 

Say what?? Now that sounds crazy I know but this fellow is right about QB more than anyone in the media. So that was cool. (And a rasberry to you Kelly the Dog let us have our fun the season will be here soon enough to shatter our dreams you monster).

 

The last time the Browns GM made a deal with the Bills, he got fired. I think that's why they are hiding McDermott. They kinda want him to forget that he made the Mahomes deal in KC with McDermott and then got kicked to the curb for his trouble. So all we are seeing is Beane.

 

The Browns GM will not take Barkely first. In short, because the top paid QB gets 3 1/2 times the money that the top running back does. So if he hits on the running back he saves ballpark 20 million dollars  by having him on a rookie contract for 4 years. If he hits on a qb he saves 100 million dollars over 4 years by having him on a rookie contract.

 

I think if McBeane didn't get lucky last year, and they really can scan the players and come up with undervalued guys who turn out great consistently, then they don't have to hurry and fill holes with a single draft.

 

I also think they are trying to invent a new angle. Which is that you come to Buffalo on a one or two year deal, and Buffalo makes you look good through good coaching and game planning, then you get to leave for your payday. That is going to be pretty appealing to players if they can keep doing that for them.

 

I am looking forward to the next few weeks of a slower paced free agency. I think they will make a move or two more. But the last few days was a bit too exciting even hough I enjoyed it. It messed with my sleep and everything. 

 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by BadLandsMeanie

[KDIGGZ]

The guys with the ? posts yesterday should all be taken to a public square a beaten for our enjoyment. It's not cute. If you hear a rumor say I just heard a rumor about such and such but it's highly unlikely to happen. Keeping it to yourself and driving everyone nuts isnt funny. Perhaps it makes them feel powerful like they are in the know and we arent. Or maybe they are scared that they will be outted as complete frauds. Pretty whack though and we all know who you are now and we won't forget

[Xwnyer]

I have no idea what the OP was trying to say

[Shaw66]

McCarron is an interesting puzzle to think about.   He might actually be good.  But I doubt it.  Here are some positive and negative thoughts about him:

 

1.  He couldn't take the job from Dalton.  Negative.

 

2.  He had a Wonderlic score of 22.   Negative.

 

3.  When he filled in for Dalton he looked effective.   Positive, particularly when you consider that the Bengals have been more or less dysfunctional for years.

 

4.  He's a team-oriented, system kind of guy.   Positive.

 

5.  He's cheap.   Positive.   I would have paid for Cousins or Keenum.   I might make a real hard run at Foles when he's a free agent.   All those other guys?  Save your money.   But the inexpensive solution. 

 

At a bare minimum, it's fun watching Beane at work.  

 

15 minutes ago, Xwnyer said:

I have no idea what the OP was trying to say

Keep reading him.   You'll get it after a while.   

[TheElectricCompany]

29 minutes ago, kdiggz said:

The guys with the ? posts yesterday should all be taken to a public square a beaten for our enjoyment. It's not cute. If you hear a rumor say I just heard a rumor about such and such but it's highly unlikely to happen. Keeping it to yourself and driving everyone nuts isnt funny. Perhaps it makes them feel powerful like they are in the know and we arent. Or maybe they are scared that they will be outted as complete frauds. Pretty whack though and we all know who you are now and we won't forget

Don't worry, we will hundreds more of these threads through draft day! 

 

[TH3]

The Browns GM will not take Barkely first. In short, because the top paid QB gets 3 1/2 times the money that the top running back does. So if he hits on the running back he saves ballpark 20 million dollars  by having him on a rookie contract for 4 years. If he hits on a qb he saves 100 million dollars over 4 years by having him on a rookie contract

 

 

What does this even mean?

[TheBeane]

3 minutes ago, baskin said:

The Browns GM will not take Barkely first. In short, because the top paid QB gets 3 1/2 times the money that the top running back does. So if he hits on the running back he saves ballpark 20 million dollars  by having him on a rookie contract for 4 years. If he hits on a qb he saves 100 million dollars over 4 years by having him on a rookie contract

 

 

What does this even mean?

He's saying that the Browns GM will select a player on future value based on contract money, rather than actual need.  QBs are much more expensive in their second contract than RBs.  So if a rookie QB outplays their rookie contract they save FAR more money than a rookie RB who outplays their contract.

Edited March 15, 2018 by TheBeane

[Shaw66]

8 minutes ago, TheBeane said:

He's saying that the Browns GM will select a player on future value based on contract money, rather than actual need.  QBs are much more expensive in their second contract than RBs.  So if a rookie QB outplays their rookie contract they save FAR more money than a rookie RB who outplays their contract.

Right.

 

Everyone wants to follow the Seahawks model:  hit the jackpot on a rookie QB and you have 3-4 years of cap room to load up on talent.   When you have a top 10 QB on a rookie contract, you have a lot of money to spend.   You're paying a rookie running back the same thing as a rookie QB, but you have to spend a lot of your cap room on a QB.  

[DrDawkinstein]

21 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

McCarron is an interesting puzzle to think about.   He might actually be good.  But I doubt it.  Here are some positive and negative thoughts about him:

 

1.  He couldn't take the job from Dalton.  Negative.

 

2.  He had a Wonderlic score of 22.   Negative.

 

3.  When he filled in for Dalton he looked effective.   Positive, particularly when you consider that the Bengals have been more or less dysfunctional for years.

 

4.  He's a team-oriented, system kind of guy.   Positive.

 

5.  He's cheap.   Positive.   I would have paid for Cousins or Keenum.   I might make a real hard run at Foles when he's a free agent.   All those other guys?  Save your money.   But the inexpensive solution. 

 

At a bare minimum, it's fun watching Beane at work.  

 

Keep reading him.   You'll get it after a while.   

 

How fair of a chance was he really given to start over the guy they had just signed to a $16M/yr Franchise contract? You think the Bengals wanted any chance at that QB controversy?

[TheElectricCompany]

2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Right.

 

Everyone wants to follow the Seahawks model:  hit the jackpot on a rookie QB and you have 3-4 years of cap room to load up on talent.   When you have a top 10 QB on a rookie contract, you have a lot of money to spend.   You're paying a rookie running back the same thing as a rookie QB, but you have to spend a lot of your cap room on a QB.  

I'm not sure the Seahawks model is the best.

They were able to find a QB who could succeed despite horrendous O-line play and mediocre WR & TE talent. 

That's going to be extremely challenging to replicate, and I'm not sure you'd want to. 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

50 minutes ago, Xwnyer said:

I have no idea what the OP was trying to say

 

...hence.....babble..............

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

To all the press who made the mysterious tweets yesterday about the big, league shocking, stunning event that would be revealed, I won't forget that you did that. I think you got trolled too and didn't want to be left out, to seem like other knew and you didn't. So you made a mysterious tweet so you could say that you knew afterwards.

And I will remember the guys who kept their mouths shut because there was nothing to say.

 

Agreed.  I like your hypothesis that some were "me, too!"ing their tweets so that they could claim to be in the know.  Dumbf***s

 

Quote

I think it is cool that after that let down when nothing happened, that we were all delighted and stoked that we got AJ McCarron. We are pretty easy to please and so am I because I liked it too even though I know he is a 5th round drat pick who has been a backup and also nobody else took him. But I was happy go figure. (And a raspberry to you Mr Kelly the Dog!  )  What made it better is that late last night that my personal QB guru friend told me that we got the best available QB outside of Jimmy Garopolo.

 

I hope your personal QB Guru friend is right.   I don't see how anyone can put McCarron above Cousins, Bradford, Keenum, or Foles for demonstrated NFL QB skills at this point.  The sample size is small, and the production not there.  But the sample was in the context of "filling in during the thick of a playoff hunt" and Foles wasn't "all that" in that context. 

 

My personal emotion was relief, because while I didn't believe Daboll would spend his chip for his probably final OC chance unless he succeeds without a better plan than Peterman and a rookie, part of me was "what if all those TBDian guys who think it wouldn't be too bad are capturing McBeane's thinking?"

 

(I'ma move some of your stuff around to prioritize)

 

Quote

The last time the Browns GM made a deal with the Bills, he got fired. I think that's why they are hiding McDermott. They kinda want him to forget that he made the Mahomes deal in KC with McDermott and then got kicked to the curb for his trouble. So all we are seeing is Beane.

 

I think they have the model that McDermott is the 'face of the franchise' during the season and Beane will keep a low profile, then vice versa during the off-season.  It's common.  It looked awkward with Whaley and Rex because the words "low profile" and "Rex" don't belong in the same sentence unless "is incapable of keeping a" falls between them.

 

If the Mahomes trade was a significant factor in Dorsett moving on I would be surprised.   The Chiefs are "all in" on Mahomes (or Alex Smith wouldn't have changed zip codes) Why would you fire a GM for bringing you the QB you're all in on?  Opinions vary here on the expanding borders of Chiefs territory  but the prevalent thinking is 1) Dorsett wanted to get paid with a big contract extension, the Chiefs weren't in on that, said "go find someone to pay you then", which he did.  2) Dorsett was a 2016 disciple of the Tony Dungy School of Play Calling Critique so bluntly revealed after the Chiefs playoff loss this year.  In a power struggle between HC and GM, someone gonna lose, and Dorsett got the "L" - for now.

 

Quote

The Browns GM will not take Barkley first. In short, because the top paid QB gets 3 1/2 times the money that the top running back does. So if he hits on the running back he saves ballpark 20 million dollars  by having him on a rookie contract for 4 years. If he hits on a qb he saves 100 million dollars over 4 years by having him on a rookie contract.

 

I do not understand this logic at all.  The Browns have 2 first round picks.  They can take Barkley, AND a QB, and save $120M.  It all depends upon who they like at QB and whether they think he'll still be there at #4.  If, say, Mayfield is their #1 or if there are 2 they like equally and at least 1 of the Giants and Colts are going to stay with their high pick and draft a player other than QB, they can sit it out. 

 

Keep in mind that a very constant ~60% of the time (12/21 since 2011, 18/30 in 10 yrs, 35/60 in 20 yrs), teams with a top 3 pick stay put and draft a position other than QB.   Too messy and too mathy?  We think everyone will trade into the top 3 picks at any price to draft a QB because that's what we want to see, but the majority of the time teams with a top-3 pick keep it and use it on a different position.

 

Quote

(And a rasberry to you Kelly the Dog let us have our fun the season will be here soon enough to shatter our dreams you monster).

 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[BadLandsMeanie]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Agreed.  I like your hypothesis that some were "me, too!"ing their tweets so that they could claim to be in the know.  Dumbf***s

 

 

I hope your personal QB Guru friend is right.   I don't see how anyone can put McCarron above Cousins, Bradford, Keenum, or Foles for demonstrated NFL QB skills at this point.  The sample size is small, and the production not there.  But the sample was in the context of "filling in during the thick of a playoff hunt" and Foles wasn't "all that" in that context. 

 

My personal emotion was relief, because while I didn't believe Daboll would spend his chip for his probably final OC chance unless he succeeds without a better plan than Peterman and a rookie, part of me was "what if all those TBDian guys who think it wouldn't be too bad are capturing McBeane's thinking?"

 

(I'ma move some of your stuff around to prioritize)

 

 

I think they have the model that McDermott is the 'face of the franchise' during the season and Beane will keep a low profile, then vice versa during the off-season.  It's common.  It looked awkward with Whaley and Rex because the words "low profile" and "Rex" don't belong in the same sentence unless "is incapable of keeping a" falls between them.

 

If the Mahomes trade was a significant factor in Dorsett moving on I would be surprised.   The Chiefs are "all in" on Mahomes (or Alex Smith wouldn't have changed zip codes) Why would you fire a GM for bringing you the QB you're all in on?  Opinions vary here on the expanding borders of Chiefs territory  but the prevalent thinking is 1) Dorsett wanted to get paid with a big contract extension, the Chiefs weren't in on that, said "go find someone to pay you then", which he did.  2) Dorsett was a 2016 disciple of the Tony Dungy School of Play Calling Critique so bluntly revealed after the Chiefs playoff loss this year.  In a power struggle between HC and GM, someone gonna lose, and Dorsett got the "L" - for now.

 

 

I do not understand this logic at all.  The Browns have 2 first round picks.  They can take Barkley, AND a QB, and save $120M.  It all depends upon who they like at QB and whether they think he'll still be there at #4.  If, say, Mayfield is their #1 or if there are 2 they like equally and at least 1 of the Giants and Colts are going to stay with their high pick and draft a player other than QB, they can sit it out. 

 

Keep in mind that a very constant ~60% of the time (12/21 since 2011, 18/30 in 10 yrs, 35/60 in 20 yrs), teams with a top 3 pick stay put and draft a position other than QB.   Too messy and too mathy?  We think everyone will trade into the top 3 picks at any price to draft a QB because that's what we want to see, but the majority of the time teams with a top-3 pick keep it and use it on a different position.

 

 

 

 

I have to run so I will just make two brief remarks in rapidly and then maybe revisit later.

 

I was mostly kidding about McDermott being hidden. I do think it is about public realtioes that we see Beane but I don't think for a second that McD isn't all over the choices they are making too.

 

Thanks for all the  background on Dorsey. But I have noticed that any time a GM invests a pick instead of going for the quick return, they can get n trouble. Mahomes had to sit for a year maybe that hurt Dorsey a little bit

 

 

As for any running back #1 overall. This isn't 1970 is another short answer. The pay scale was just shorthand. It is about the value.

 

This year especially someone will pay 3 firsts or the equivalent for that #1 spot and no running back is  worth that nowadays. Maybe I am stupid, silly, and wrong, but I think it would be crazy.

 

Look at it this way, the Browns are behind 17 points in the 4th quarter. What will Barkely be doing? Pass blocking. Yeah ok he is magic and he will get free and he will catch the ball and win. I don't believe it. We will see!

 

What I see in him is a guy who hasn't faced NFL speed yet. It is a big if, to me, if somebody can still excell when facing that. In his highlights I saw mainly a guy who was very open for passes and also seemed to have great blocking. But here I may be stupid because I have only seen a few highlights.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by BadLandsMeanie

[billsbackto81]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

McCarron is an interesting puzzle to think about.   He might actually be good.  But I doubt it.  Here are some positive and negative thoughts about him:

 

1.  He couldn't take the job from Dalton.  Negative.

 

2.  He had a Wonderlic score of 22.   Negative.

 

3.  When he filled in for Dalton he looked effective.   Positive, particularly when you consider that the Bengals have been more or less dysfunctional for years.

 

4.  He's a team-oriented, system kind of guy.   Positive.

 

5.  He's cheap.   Positive.   I would have paid for Cousins or Keenum.   I might make a real hard run at Foles when he's a free agent.   All those other guys?  Save your money.   But the inexpensive solution. 

 

At a bare minimum, it's fun watching Beane at work.  

 

Keep reading him.   You'll get it after a while.   

1. Neither could Aaron Rodgers from Farve or Steve Young from Montana. Grant it Dalton isn't a HOFer but you don't bench your franchise QB whose had more success than failure.

2. Neither did Marino or Kelly, though Fitzpatrick pretty much aced it. The Wonderlic is a BS measuring stick.

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by billsbackto81

[NoSaint]

2 hours ago, baskin said:

The Browns GM will not take Barkely first. In short, because the top paid QB gets 3 1/2 times the money that the top running back does. So if he hits on the running back he saves ballpark 20 million dollars  by having him on a rookie contract for 4 years. If he hits on a qb he saves 100 million dollars over 4 years by having him on a rookie contract

 

 

What does this even mean?

 

Easy -

 

would you rather sign shady (or any in their prime feature back) and get the first qb for about 10-15m per year for the pair 

 

or Bradford and Barkley for 20-25m per year

 

or cousins and Barkley for 35+ per year 

[BuffaLoko]

2 hours ago, TheBeane said:

He's saying that the Browns GM will select a player on future value based on contract money, rather than actual need.  QBs are much more expensive in their second contract than RBs.  So if a rookie QB outplays their rookie contract they save FAR more money than a rookie RB who outplays their contract.

Thank you! Mr. Beane... you explained this very clearly, as the great GM that you are!

[BuffaloBillsGospel]

2 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

How fair of a chance was he really given to start over the guy they had just signed to a $16M/yr Franchise contract? You think the Bengals wanted any chance at that QB controversy?

 

Do you honestly think if McCaron was that much better than Dalton they wouldn't have started him? When he did start he averaged only 222 yards per game. Again I'm not knocking this pickup, it was a low risk with a potential big reward but counting on that big reward could be a huge disappointment to a bunch of fans.

[BadLandsMeanie]

4 hours ago, baskin said:

The Browns GM will not take Barkely first. In short, because the top paid QB gets 3 1/2 times the money that the top running back does. So if he hits on the running back he saves ballpark 20 million dollars  by having him on a rookie contract for 4 years. If he hits on a qb he saves 100 million dollars over 4 years by having him on a rookie contract

 

 

What does this even mean?

 

4 hours ago, TheBeane said:

He's saying that the Browns GM will select a player on future value based on contract money, rather than actual need.  QBs are much more expensive in their second contract than RBs.  So if a rookie QB outplays their rookie contract they save FAR more money than a rookie RB who outplays their contract.

 

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Right.

 

Everyone wants to follow the Seahawks model:  hit the jackpot on a rookie QB and you have 3-4 years of cap room to load up on talent.   When you have a top 10 QB on a rookie contract, you have a lot of money to spend.   You're paying a rookie running back the same thing as a rookie QB, but you have to spend a lot of your cap room on a QB.  

For example, that is where Sammy Watkins' money came from. Out of Mahome's pocket.

 

They could over spend on Sammy because they have a cheap QB and another receiver on a rookie contract.

 

 

[RollBillsRoll]

1 hour ago, BuffaloBillsGospel said:

 

Do you honestly think if McCaron was that much better than Dalton they wouldn't have started him? When he did start he averaged only 222 yards per game. Again I'm not knocking this pickup, it was a low risk with a potential big reward but counting on that big reward could be a huge disappointment to a bunch of fans.

 

 

Just an observation, but doesn't the backup qb get only a fraction of practice snaps during the season? So I imagine it would take a Herculean effort to come in off the bench and have instant chemistry with the receivers/oline in order to put up 300 yards per game. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the playbook was severely pared down, making it even more unlikely that a backup qb can come in a put up huge numbers in just a few weeks.

[BadLandsMeanie]

5 hours ago, RollBillsRoll said:

 

 

Just an observation, but doesn't the backup qb get only a fraction of practice snaps during the season? So I imagine it would take a Herculean effort to come in off the bench and have instant chemistry with the receivers/oline in order to put up 300 yards per game. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the playbook was severely pared down, making it even more unlikely that a backup qb can come in a put up huge numbers in just a few weeks.

Yes they get only a few. Sometimes they get none. Peterman got none fairly often. He would run the scout team which is something but it isnt the same as reps with the team.

 

Speaking fro myself, I always knew and read how backups get fewer reps in camp and practice etc. But it never really sunk in for me until I went to camp and saw it. One guy gets 75% of the practice and the other gets 25.  A "camp arm" guy we had one time got 2. 2 reps out of a 2 1/2 hour practice. He didn't have any chance at all to prove himself or get better.