Random Babble From a Rabble

[Thurman#1]

13 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

You're not a rabble, Meanie. Just a member of one.

 

11 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

 

Hey cool thanks Thurman. It feels good to belong! 

 

As a member of the hoi polloi, a couple of flocks and throngs and a riff raff or two, I quite agree.

[ILBillsfan]

9 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

 

 

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.

 

 

The only thing I will say in regards to the Browns I if they do not take Barkly one he will not be there at 4 both Giants and colts would love him.

 

As for the implied $$$ since the two picks are so close together it washes each other out.  So it comes down to the gamble are they OK with losing Barkley for the QB or getting Barkley and one of the top QB's still.. This is for the Browns to judge..If they value Rosen/Darnold very similar I could see them still taking Barkley one.

[Billsfanatixs]

17 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

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. 

 

 

 

Badlands, are you from Rochester area? I always see your posts when i get home from camp, always a good read

 

[Shaw66]

9 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

I will counter by saying at some point you have stop being the Browns.

 

Sacrificing all that time and saving up, only to ultimately take a running back at #1, and then whatever quarterback was left over at #4, would be the most idiotically stupid thing I have ever seen a team do.

 

 I would say your plan of taking your qb at #1 then Barkely at #4 would not be bad at all.

 

 

I haven't been around and will jump back in here.

 

I agree with both of you that would be nuts not to take a QB at #1.   

 

Where I will disagree with you is taking Barkely at 4.   Now, let me say I've essentially never seen Barkely, but I gather he's really special.   Still, I'm really in the camp that running backs simply are not that important.   A couple of points that I've made before:

 

1.  Who are the best running backs in the last 15 years?   Tomlinson and Peterson, probably.   McCoy actually may be in the conversation.   How many championships have they won?   I think the answer to that is none.  

 

2.  Which leads to a broader point, which is which positions have the most impact on winning?   QB is first.   Running back is NOT second.   Maybe offensive tackle, maybe edge rusher.   But not long snapper, not punter, not running back.   I don't care how good Barkely may be, if Kahlil Mack is at 4, I'm taking him ahead of Barkely.   Actually, the same thing is true for receivers - the Bills should have taken Kahlil Mack instead of Sammy.   

 

3.  Meanie's made the point before about rookie salaries.   From a cap management point of view, a stud offensive tackle on his rookie contract is a much better cap management value than a stud running back.  The best tackles are $12-15 million, the best running backs are $6-8 million.   That's $6-7 million of cap room you have if grab a star tackle in the draft, over what you'd have if you bought a tackle in the free agent market (assuming you could find one).  

 

The Bills have made all the drafting mistakes.   They made the CJ Spiller mistake, they made the Watkins mistake.   Don't waste high picks on running backs or receivers, don't trade up for anything except a quarterback.   The Browns have been even better at it.  

9 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

You're not a rabble, Meanie. Just a member of one.

A leading member, I might add.  

[BadLandsMeanie]

8 hours ago, Billsfanatixs said:

Badlands, are you from Rochester area? I always see your posts when i get home from camp, always a good read

 

Yep I am and thank you.

 

 

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

 

A leading member, I might add.  

Thank you for the laugh

[K-9]

On 3/15/2018 at 10:28 AM, 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?

I think it means lack of understanding of the rookie wage scale.

[BadLandsMeanie]

10 hours ago, ILBillsfan said:

The only thing I will say in regards to the Browns I if they do not take Barkly one he will not be there at 4 both Giants and colts would love him.

 

As for the implied $$$ since the two picks are so close together it washes each other out.  So it comes down to the gamble are they OK with losing Barkley for the QB or getting Barkley and one of the top QB's still.. This is for the Browns to judge..If they value Rosen/Darnold very similar I could see them still taking Barkley one.

I see what you mean but take a look at it my way. I am not talking about what the 2 rookie contracts will cost. Those will be close to the same like you say.

 

I am talking about down the road a little from that. If you don't draft a good QB you will have to pay for one. For a good one it will cost 30 million a year in round numbers.

 

So generally speaking, picking #1 overall you can use the pick on a running back and then pay 30 million for your QB.

 

Or You can pick a QB and then use the 30 million on a 8 million dollar running back, an 8 million dollar lineman, and a 14 million dollar wide receiver.

 

So one way you get a QB and a running back.

 

The other way you get a QB, a pro bowl level running back, a pro bowl level wide receiver, and a pro bowl level lineman if he is a guard.

40 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I think it means lack of understanding of the rookie wage scale.

Oh for Pete's sake.

 

For you or for me?

 

The rookie wage scale has NOTHING to do with what i am taking about!!

 

I don't know how to explain what I mean any clearer or if I do, I am not willing to at this point. But maybe don't go around throwing snark about not understanding things if there is chance that you are the one who doesn't understand. Like now.

 

Show me the guy on a rookie contract who makes 30 million dollars a season. Show me that guy. Then you can run your mouth about me not understanding what is being said here and what the rookie wage scale is.

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by BadLandsMeanie

[Shaw66]

29 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

I see what you mean but take a look at it my way. I am not talking about what the 2 rookie contracts will cost. Those will be close to the same like you say.

 

I am talking about down the road a little from that. If you don't draft a good QB you will have to pay for one. For a good one it will cost 30 million a year in round numbers.

 

So generally speaking, picking #1 overall you can use the pick on a running back and then pay 30 million for your QB.

 

Or You can pick a QB and then use the 30 million on a 8 million dollar running back, an 8 million dollar lineman, and a 14 million dollar wide receiver.

 

Actually, it's worse than that, because there are very few $30 million QBs on the market.   Cousins this year.  Garoppolo, if you were quick enough to trade for him.   Last one before that was Brees.   (Peyton was a special case.)   If I

 

So when you have the draft pick, I think you MUST take the QB.   It may be the only chance you get, other than getting lucky.   

 

That's why when the Bills passed on Cousins, it was about 95% certain that they were trading up, and now that they moved up to 12, it's just about as certain, maybe more so, that they're moving up again. 

 

You have to make your move when you have the opportunity.   The Bills decided that Cousins wasn't the opportunity, so it must be the draft.  

 

As I said somewhere this morning, if I'm the Browns I'm not taking a running back in the first round at all.   But if I really want to take the running back, the only way I'm doing it is if I can trade up from 4 to 3 or 2.    If I sit at 4, I run the risk that I'm getting my THIRD choice at QB or I'm losing to Barkely to someone.   Seems to me the Colts are either taking a QB or trading out to someone who wants one.  

 

[BadLandsMeanie]

43 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Actually, it's worse than that, because there are very few $30 million QBs on the market.   Cousins this year.  Garoppolo, if you were quick enough to trade for him.   Last one before that was Brees.   (Peyton was a special case.)   If I

 

So when you have the draft pick, I think you MUST take the QB.   It may be the only chance you get, other than getting lucky.   

 

That's why when the Bills passed on Cousins, it was about 95% certain that they were trading up, and now that they moved up to 12, it's just about as certain, maybe more so, that they're moving up again. 

 

You have to make your move when you have the opportunity.   The Bills decided that Cousins wasn't the opportunity, so it must be the draft.  

 

As I said somewhere this morning, if I'm the Browns I'm not taking a running back in the first round at all.   But if I really want to take the running back, the only way I'm doing it is if I can trade up from 4 to 3 or 2.    If I sit at 4, I run the risk that I'm getting my THIRD choice at QB or I'm losing to Barkely to someone.   Seems to me the Colts are either taking a QB or trading out to someone who wants one.  

 

You make some good points. You are on a roll! Have you switched over to a new breakfast cereal? It seems to be working.

 

What gets to me Shaw is the number of professional outlets who think they will take Barkley at #1. I can't see any way that doing that would be the best thing to do. Even if he turned out to be Walter Peyton, I don't think Walyter Peyton would be Walter Peyton nowadays because they have slanted the rules so far in favor of the passing game. How can Barkley overcome the rules?

 

I see it like this in a way. Say I win a prize of a free vehicle at a big dealership. I can have any one I want. So I go and get a full size pickup truck with a crew cab and bed cover and 4 wheel drive because of how versatile that is for all my needs. Or I get me a Prius because they are very good cars and good for the planet.

 

But I pass on the Ferrari because  it has two seats and is hard to get in and out of and it stinks in the snow and costs a fortune to maintain and I am sure I will soon lose my licence from speeding tickets.

 

Instead of taking the Ferrari and selling it and buying the truck and the Prius and a boat and taking a cruise and remodeling my kitchen.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by BadLandsMeanie

[K-9]

1 hour ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

I see what you mean but take a look at it my way. I am not talking about what the 2 rookie contracts will cost. Those will be close to the same like you say.

 

I am talking about down the road a little from that. If you don't draft a good QB you will have to pay for one. For a good one it will cost 30 million a year in round numbers.

 

So generally speaking, picking #1 overall you can use the pick on a running back and then pay 30 million for your QB.

 

Or You can pick a QB and then use the 30 million on a 8 million dollar running back, an 8 million dollar lineman, and a 14 million dollar wide receiver.

 

So one way you get a QB and a running back.

 

The other way you get a QB, a pro bowl level running back, a pro bowl level wide receiver, and a pro bowl level lineman if he is a guard.

Oh for Pete's sake.

 

For you or for me?

 

The rookie wage scale has NOTHING to do with what i am taking about!!

 

I don't know how to explain what I mean any clearer or if I do, I am not willing to at this point. But maybe don't go around throwing snark about not understanding things if there is chance that you are the one who doesn't understand. Like now.

 

Show me the guy on a rookie contract who makes 30 million dollars a season. Show me that guy. Then you can run your mouth about me not understanding what is being said here and what the rookie wage scale is.

 

Sorry, but I only read your OP and the conflation of rookie wages with future wages at particular positions didn’t make sense to me. If you have gone on to better explain and clarify your point in subsequent posts, great. But, like your unwillingness to further explain, I have the same nondesire to read it at this point.

[BadLandsMeanie]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

Sorry, but I only read your OP and the conflation of rookie wages with future wages at particular positions didn’t make sense to me. If you have gone on to better explain and clarify your point in subsequent posts, great. But, like your unwillingness to further explain, I have the same nondesire to read it at this point.

Ok. But I bet you will see the notice that you got quoted and read this.

 

And this. 

 

 

[BadLandsMeanie]

More random babble.

 

Darryl Talley has always been a favorite of mine because of how he played the game, how he protected Jim Kelly (by Re-Talley-ating) when teams would cross the line with Jimbo by slamming him down instead of a regular sack,  and that he always wore that Spiderman stuff. 

 

With revelations of one certain aspect of recent events at the combine making me angry,  I played out a little picture in my mind that made me happier.

 

I pictured someone interviewing a team official of the past about what they learned about Darryl Talley, when they asked him if his mother was a prostitute during the interview process.

 

To which he replies, "We learned that whatever you do, never, ever, ask Darryl Talley if his mother is a prostitute"

 

 

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

You make some good points. You are on a roll! Have you switched over to a new breakfast cereal? It seems to be working.

 

What gets to me Shaw is the number of professional outlets who think they will take Barkley at #1. I can't see any way that doing that would be the best thing to do. Even if he turned out to be Walter Peyton, I don't think Walyter Peyton would be Walter Peyton nowadays because they have slanted the rules so far in favor of the passing game. How can Barkley overcome the rules?

 

I see it like this in a way. Say I win a prize of a free vehicle at a big dealership. I can have any one I want. So I go and get a full size pickup truck with a crew cab and bed cover and 4 wheel drive because of how versatile that is for all my needs. Or I get me a Prius because they are very good cars and good for the planet.

 

But I pass on the Ferrari because  it has two seats and is hard to get in and out of and it stinks in the snow and costs a fortune to maintain and I am sure I will soon lose my licence from speeding tickets.

 

Instead of taking the Ferrari and selling it and buying the truck and the Prius and a boat and taking a cruise and remodeling my kitchen.

 

 

 

 

 

Who is Walter Peyton?   Some guy they cloned from Peyton Manning and Walter Payton?   Now, THAT guy I'd take number one.  

12 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

More random babble.

 

Darryl Talley has always been a favorite of mine because of how he played the game, how he protected Jim Kelly (by Re-Talley-ating) when teams would cross the line with Jimbo by slamming him down instead of a regular sack,  and that he always wore that Spiderman stuff. 

 

With revelations of one certain aspect of recent events at the combine making me angry,  I played out a little picture in my mind that made me happier.

 

I pictured someone interviewing a team official of the past about what they learned about Darryl Talley, when they asked him if his mother was a prostitute during the interview process.

 

To which he replies, "We learned that whatever you do, never, ever, ask Darryl Talley if his mother is a prostitute"

 

 

Now that is REALLY random.  

[BadLandsMeanie]

31 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Who is Walter Peyton?   Some guy they cloned from Peyton Manning and Walter Payton?   Now, THAT guy I'd take number one.  

Now that is REALLY random.  

My apologies to Walter Payton looking down from up there, and to his family!

 

And yes it was really random indeed. But back when that was happening I was thinking I would want the guy who broke the nose of the man who asked him that question. And it made me sad that no one did because I really, really, highly intensely dislike that they do that to these guys. They can call it what they will but I see it as them making guys grovel trying to get drafted.

 

And I was thinking back to the good old days and to some of the guys we had and one of them I saw as least likely to be a-groveling was Talley because he was fair and not dirty but he had a line that if a man crossed it you would know about it. And it made me happier.

 

The gay question is different because that isn't an insult even though I am sure they mean it to be a snide remark.

 

But your mom? A Hooker? Over the line the player should get that straightened out right away how far is too far as I see it.

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by BadLandsMeanie

[Thurman#1]

21 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

 

A leading member, I might add.  

 

 

Indeed. And it's a pretty hardscrabble rabble, who sound like the Tower of Babel.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

19 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Actually, it's worse than that, because there are very few $30 million QBs on the market.   Cousins this year.  Garoppolo, if you were quick enough to trade for him.   Last one before that was Brees.   (Peyton was a special case.)   If I

 

So when you have the draft pick, I think you MUST take the QB.   It may be the only chance you get, other than getting lucky.   

 

That's why when the Bills passed on Cousins, it was about 95% certain that they were trading up, and now that they moved up to 12, it's just about as certain, maybe more so, that they're moving up again. 

 

You have to make your move when you have the opportunity.   The Bills decided that Cousins wasn't the opportunity, so it must be the draft.  

 

As I said somewhere this morning, if I'm the Browns I'm not taking a running back in the first round at all.   But if I really want to take the running back, the only way I'm doing it is if I can trade up from 4 to 3 or 2.    If I sit at 4, I run the risk that I'm getting my THIRD choice at QB or I'm losing to Barkely to someone.   Seems to me the Colts are either taking a QB or trading out to someone who wants one.  

 

 

 

 

Generally speaking, I'm with you. Don't go RB in the first at all. 

 

The one exception, IMHO, is if you're in the situation the Browns are in now, where they're going to draft a rookie QB who's going to spend a minimum of two or three years starting for them. I think grabbing a Barkley in this situation makes your QB a lot more effective and a lot harder to defend and pressure. And maybe the Browns are in even a better situation to do that with all the draft picks they have.

 

I could understand it if they go that way, though I can't see almost any rationalisation for going Barkley at #1.

[Thurman#1]

On 3/16/2018 at 10:31 AM, BadLandsMeanie said:

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.

 

 

 

Did you see the article just recently on one reason why the Chiefs thought Mahomes was going to make it? They said that they found that he understood team dynamics really well and explained how they knew that.

 

They said that after practice, Mahomes, as many 2nd string QBs do, often grabbed a bunch of the receivers to go practice what he'd just seen. And they said that what impressed them was that when some of the first string WRs offered to work with him, he politely turned them down. He saw the starters as Smith's guys and didn't want to in any way be seen as trying to split the team or cause controversies. He just worked with the 2nd and 3rd string WRs.

 

Thought that was a really interesting point about team dynamics, but also about how later QBs certainly can do a lot to improve and get reps. Often reps that fans might never see.

 

Quickly tried to google it just now but couldn't find it. Couldn't come up with good enough keywords. Just saw it in the last 24 hours but now can't find it again.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Thurman#1

[BadLandsMeanie]

35 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

Did you see the article just recently on one reason why the Chiefs thought Mahomes was going to make it? They said that they found that he understood team dynamics really well and explained how they knew that.

 

They said that after practice, Mahomes, as many 2nd string QBs do, often grabbed a bunch of the receivers to go practice what he'd just seen. And they said that what impressed them was that when some of the first string WRs offered to work with him, he politely turned them down. He saw the starters as Smith's guys and didn't want to in any way be seen as trying to split the team or cause controversies. He just worked with the 2nd and 3rd string WRs.

 

Thought that was a really interesting point about team dynamics, but also about how later QBs certainly can do a lot to improve and get reps. Often reps that fans might never see.

 

Quickly tried to google it just now but couldn't find it. Couldn't come up with good enough keywords. Just saw it in the last 24 hours but now can't find it again.

Wow thanks for telling me that Thurman. That was interesting.

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

Generally speaking, I'm with you. Don't go RB in the first at all. 

 

The one exception, IMHO, is if you're in the situation the Browns are in now, where they're going to draft a rookie QB who's going to spend a minimum of two or three years starting for them. I think grabbing a Barkley in this situation makes your QB a lot more effective and a lot harder to defend and pressure. And maybe the Browns are in even a better situation to do that with all the draft picks they have.

 

I could understand it if they go that way, though I can't see almost any rationalisation for going Barkley at #1.

Maybe, but I think you're confusing having a good running back with having a good running GAME.  The fundamental reason why teams shouldn't burn igh picks on running backs is that tou can have, and many teams do have, a good running game without a great running back. Contrast that with QBs and the passing game.  You can't be consistently good at passing without the right qb.  

 

It's the shiny new toy problem. GMS have to resist the urge to take the guy who looks good and focus on the guy who helps build towards long term success.  That's why so many offensive linemen go in the first round.  

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

Did you see the article just recently on one reason why the Chiefs thought Mahomes was going to make it? They said that they found that he understood team dynamics really well and explained how they knew that.

 

They said that after practice, Mahomes, as many 2nd string QBs do, often grabbed a bunch of the receivers to go practice what he'd just seen. And they said that what impressed them was that when some of the first string WRs offered to work with him, he politely turned them down. He saw the starters as Smith's guys and didn't want to in any way be seen as trying to split the team or cause controversies. He just worked with the 2nd and 3rd string WRs.

 

Thought that was a really interesting point about team dynamics, but also about how later QBs certainly can do a lot to improve and get reps. Often reps that fans might never see.

 

Quickly tried to google it just now but couldn't find it. Couldn't come up with good enough keywords. Just saw it in the last 24 hours but now can't find it again.

I think that's a good example of all of the little things that breed success. Staff like that never shows up on Stat sheets.  It doesn't make a bad qb a good qb.  But it makes a difference in team building.