John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, mannc said:

What's your opinion of the decision to decline Watkins's fifth-year option?  I think it's a pretty tough decision to defend. 

You didn't ask me, but I never understood it.  I try to understand the logic in movies that they make, and one reason I like McBeane is that they seem to have good reasons for doing things.   This one I never understood.

 

Watkins may have been less than a great team player, but he wasn't a cancer.  He just seemed not to realize his potential. 

 

I always say it's better to keep good talent a year too long than to give up on talent a year too early, so I would have exercised the option and tried to get him to be the guy we all hoped he would be.  

 

Turns out that wouldn't have helped much, because he wasn't stellar for either of the next two years and would have left in free agency.  Still, I thought he was worth the continuing investment. 

[BADOLBILZ]

2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Why couldn't the Rams reach a deal with Watkins when they could with Cooks?  They signed for the same amount of money per year, just less years.

So the Rams were willing to pay Cooks $16 million a year, but not Watkins.  That $16 million a year is what Watkins got in KC.

 

 

 

 They are taking the "you gotta break a couple eggs to make an omelette approach".  If they feel that was the best approach, then do it.  We weren't winning before, so why continue going down the old regimes path?

 

 

 

 

1. Rams couldn't reach a deal in part because they didn't have negotiating leverage on Watkins.  Watkins also wasn't thrilled about not getting the ball thrown to him.    Goff struggled to throw the ball deep.   So McVay played the whole season using Watkins to run Richard Sherman and Jalen Ramsey and Patrick Peterson, Josh Norman etc.. out of the play by running Watkins deep and destroying teams with wide open receivers underneath.    When the playoffs came the Falcons took away the underneath and intermediate "Goff" routes.  The Rams then tried to use Watkins to run routes they hadn't worked all season to beat the tight coverage and it looked like they'd never played together.   Lesson learned for McVay.......you gotta' use everyone during the season even if you are going thru in-season defenses like sh*t thru a goose.    But all things being equal Watkins was going to want to go somewhere that the QB could throw the ball deep.    Mahomes was a perfect match.

 

2. They were willing to pay more to Cooks than Sammy because he has been great AND healthy.    Nice option to have.    One of the flaws of the "parity" encouraging system the NFL has is that teams at the back end of round 1 have a real advantage when trading for star players.    Pats did it to get Cooks from New Orleans and the Rams did it the next year to get him.    

 

3. So......you really don't understand this saying.    You can't make an omelette without egg........so you gotta' break the egg.   There is no other option.  That's what the saying means. You CAN win in the NFL without tearing a team down.   No option.........option.   Get it?  

 

4. Building on talent is not necessarily "going down the old regimes path".     Are the Rams still on the Jeff Fisher path because they kept so many players?   You are literally just reaching for sayings and cliches that make no sense in this context.

[Augie]

So....is Sammy the broken egg here? It seems it was a role he was destined to play. 

[Rico]

2 hours ago, Chemical said:

 

https://www.chiefs.com/video/patrick-mahomes-makes-back-foot-54-yard-pass-to-sammy-watkins

 

https://www.chiefs.com/video/patrick-mahomes-makes-on-the-run-38-yard-pass-to-sammy-watkins

 

these two plays alone are worth 16 mil considering the circumstances. 

Chris Hogan did a lot more to help his team actually get a ring, and I don't miss him either.

[mannc]

34 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

You didn't ask me, but I never understood it.  I try to understand the logic in movies that they make, and one reason I like McBeane is that they seem to have good reasons for doing things.   This one I never understood.

 

Watkins may have been less than a great team player, but he wasn't a cancer.  He just seemed not to realize his potential. 

 

I always say it's better to keep good talent a year too long than to give up on talent a year too early, so I would have exercised the option and tried to get him to be the guy we all hoped he would be.  

 

Turns out that wouldn't have helped much, because he wasn't stellar for either of the next two years and would have left in free agency.  Still, I thought he was worth the continuing investment. 

Even if they weren't going to keep Watkins, it seems to me it would have been smart to pick up the option because (I assume) it would have increased his trade value because teams would be acquiring him for at least two years, not a one-year rental.  Also, as it turns out, the 5th year would have been a relative bargain at $11 million, even though Watkins had a less than stellar year with the Rams.

 

There's no telling what would have happened if the Bills had kept Watkins, but I think it's safe to say they (1) would not have wasted a 3d round pick on KB and (2) they would have had a better receiving corps last year for Josh Allen (or whichever QB they ended up with).   

[Rico]

1 minute ago, mannc said:

Even if they weren't going to keep Watkins, it seems to me it would have been smart to pick up the option because (I assume) it would have increased his trade value because teams would be acquiring him for at least two years, not a one-year rental.  Also, as it turns out, the 5th year would have been a relative bargain at $11 million, even though Watkins had a less than stellar year with the Rams.

 

There's no telling what would have happened if the Bills had kept Watkins, but I think it's safe to say they (1) would not have wasted a 3d round pick on KB and (2) they would have had a better receiving corps last year for Josh Allen (or whichever QB they ended up with).   

And if they hadn't determined he was a loser, that's what might have happened.

[Royale with Cheese]

2 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

1. Rams couldn't reach a deal in part because they didn't have negotiating leverage on Watkins.  Watkins also wasn't thrilled about not getting the ball thrown to him.    Goff struggled to throw the ball deep.   So McVay played the whole season using Watkins to run Richard Sherman and Jalen Ramsey and Patrick Peterson, Josh Norman etc.. out of the play by running Watkins deep and destroying teams with wide open receivers underneath.    When the playoffs came the Falcons took away the underneath and intermediate "Goff" routes.  The Rams then tried to use Watkins to run routes they hadn't worked all season to beat the tight coverage and it looked like they'd never played together.   Lesson learned for McVay.......you gotta' use everyone during the season even if you are going thru in-season defenses like sh*t thru a goose.    But all things being equal Watkins was going to want to go somewhere that the QB could throw the ball deep.    Mahomes was a perfect match.

 

2. They were willing to pay more to Cooks than Sammy because he has been great AND healthy.    Nice option to have.    One of the flaws of the "parity" encouraging system the NFL has is that teams at the back end of round 1 have a real advantage when trading for star players.    Pats did it to get Cooks from New Orleans and the Rams did it the next year to get him.    

 

3. So......you really don't understand this saying.    You can't make an omelette without egg........so you gotta' break the egg.   There is no other option.  That's what the saying means. You CAN win in the NFL without tearing a team down.   No option.........option.   Get it?  

 

4. Building on talent is not necessarily "going down the old regimes path".     Are the Rams still on the Jeff Fisher path because they kept so many players?   You are literally just reaching for sayings and cliches that make no sense in this context.

 

LOL...Goff struggled with the deep ball. I guess he’s struggles with the deep ball only with Watkins but doesn’t with Cooks.

 

Only Sammy can be a decoy to run people off.  Julio Jones, AB, OBJ....they all can run and run people off but they aren’t used that way.  Geezus...enough with the pathetic excuses for his lack of production.

 

https://theramswire.usatoday.com/2018/01/10/nfl-los-angeles-rams-jared-goff-stats-deep-passes-ranking/

 

https://brickwallblitz.com/2019/02/22/the-2018-19-deep-ball-project-part-3-3/

 

And you’re #4...I have no idea what you’re talking about.  I simply said the Bills Brass thought it was better to rebuild.  I don’t feel every situation is the same.  Get it?

Edited June 26, 2019 by Royale with Cheese

[Shaw66]

This thread is crazy.  We've talked about all kinds of things.   

 

I find it interesting that according to some people McBeane got BOTH of these things wrong:

 

They didn't pay Watkins $14 million or more (SEVENTH IN THE LEAGUE) for mediocre receiver performance and lousy locker room presence.

 

They did pay Lotulelei $10 million (13th in the league and $4 million less than Dareus) for mediocre defensive tackle performance and good locker room presence.  

Edited June 27, 2019 by Shaw66

[oldmanfan]

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

This thread is crazy.  We've talked about all kinds of things.   

 

I find it interesting that according some people McBeane got BOTH of these things wrong:

 

They didn't pay Watkins $14 million or more (SEVENTH IN THE LEAGUE) for mediocre receiver performance and lousy locker room presence.

 

They did pay Lotulelei $10 million (13th in the league and $4 million less than Dareus) for mediocre defensive tackle performance and good locker room presence.  

This is just too good.

[K-9]

3 hours ago, Augie said:

So....is Sammy the broken egg here? It seems it was a role he was destined to play. 

Sammy is the egg man.

 

Goo goo g’joob.

[oldmanfan]

Just now, K-9 said:

Sammy is the egg man.

 

Goo goo g’joob.

And Star is the walrus

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

29 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

This thread is crazy.  We've talked about all kinds of things.   

 

I find it interesting that according some people McBeane got BOTH of these things wrong:

 

They didn't pay Watkins $14 million or more (SEVENTH IN THE LEAGUE) for mediocre receiver performance and lousy locker room presence.

 

They did pay Lotulelei $10 million (13th in the league and $4 million less than Dareus) for mediocre defensive tackle performance and good locker room presence.  

 

The opposite is interesting as well. 

 

Star is much worse comparatively and surrounding Allen with talent should be more of a priority than a run stopper. Run stopping DT is not a hard thing to find, but he’s our highest paid player. Star is a replacement level player AT BEST. 

 

thanks for bringing this up. 

 

Interesting, we could afford both btw.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Chemical

[HappyDays]

53 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

This thread is crazy.  We've talked about all kinds of things.   

 

I find it interesting that according to some people McBeane got BOTH of these things wrong:

 

They didn't pay Watkins $14 million or more (SEVENTH IN THE LEAGUE) for mediocre receiver performance and lousy locker room presence.

 

They did pay Lotulelei $10 million (13th in the league and $4 million less than Dareus) for mediocre defensive tackle performance and good locker room presence.  

 

A couple people in the thread also think Mitch Morse was a bad signing because he has a history of concussions. 

[Coach Tuesday]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

This thread is crazy.  We've talked about all kinds of things.   

 

I find it interesting that according to some people McBeane got BOTH of these things wrong:

 

They didn't pay Watkins $14 million or more (SEVENTH IN THE LEAGUE) for mediocre receiver performance and lousy locker room presence.

 

They did pay Lotulelei $10 million (13th in the league and $4 million less than Dareus) for mediocre defensive tackle performance and good locker room presence.  

 

Um, position value dude?

[mannc]

4 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Um, position value dude?

You’re not seriously suggesting that run-plugging DTs have a higher positional value than WRs are you?

[beerme1]

Opened this thread for the first time in a long time and we're talkin about Sammy Watkins. Sammy Watkins! Why? Because we're Buffalo? Cripes let's move on shall we. Sammy's got nothing to do with us now or in the future. Now maybe the exploits of Percy Harvin or even better Richie is someone we could talk about. ?

Onward gents. 2019 now. 

Edited June 27, 2019 by beerme1

[Coach Tuesday]

15 minutes ago, mannc said:

You’re not seriously suggesting that run-plugging DTs have a higher positional value than WRs are you?

 

The opposite.

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

18 minutes ago, beerme1 said:

Opened this thread for the first time in a long time and we're talkin about Sammy Watkins. Sammy Watkins! Why? Because we're Buffalo? Cripes let's move on shall we. Sammy's got nothing to do with us now or in the future. Now maybe the exploits of Percy Harvin or even better Richie is someone we could talk about. ?

Onward gents. 2019 now. 

 

Can’t evaluate a trade immediately but when you try to a couple years later you get told to move on. 

 

Turns out the Rams got one year of Sammy Watkins for a 2nd round pick. They received a comp 3rd when he left. So essentially a late 2nd for late 3rd swap to surround their young QB with more receiver talent in a critical point in his development. 

 

This is is the kind of perspective you don’t have until later on. Maybe a team with a first time head coach and young QB who turned it around and made the super bowl in two years is actually relevant to a discussion of how the Bills have been/should be built. 

 

Thanks for your contribution though

[mannc]

19 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

The opposite.

Gotcha?

[Thurman#1]

19 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

I have no ax to grind wrt Sammy, other than the fact that I hated the trade to draft him.

 

That said, Sammy is 10x more talented than Zay Jones at every aspect single aspect of the wide receiver position.

 

I took guitar lessons yeas ago and still have a nice acoustic I play around with every now and then. Let us not compare me to Jerry Garcia.

 

 

There's no sense in making the analogy of Zay is to Watkins as you are to Garcia. More like Zay is to Watkins as the guitarist of Fish is to Garcia. Zay is in the top hundred WRs in the world right now. I'm guessing you don't fit at that level as a guitarist. (If you're in the top hundred, tell me, and I'll take it all back.

 

10x more talented simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

Watkins didn't have more yards or TDs than Zay did last year. And yet Watkins made about 20x Zay's salary. Getting rid of Sammy was whip-smart GMing, especially as it helped bring in Josh Allen.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

22 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

That's not true.  The Rams decided not to tag him and let him walk.  Then they traded for another WR (Cooks)and gave him the same $16 million a year average deal.

They could have kept him but they didn't.  The Rams could have extended him after trading for him....but they didn't. 

 

His injuries aren't his only legitimate gripe.  His production is.  

 

 

 

This. The Rams paid Cooks the same money that could have brought them Sammy ... but they also threw in their first round pick. They thought Cooks was worth a first-rounder more than Sammy was.

 

And based on production, they may well have underestimated that difference.

[Thurman#1]

14 hours ago, mannc said:

 

There's no telling what would have happened if the Bills had kept Watkins, but I think it's safe to say they (1) would not have wasted a 3d round pick on KB and (2) they would have had a better receiving corps last year for Josh Allen (or whichever QB they ended up with).   

 

 

 

 

... and that they'd have about $44 mill less to spend in FA this year  ($12 mill in 2017 for the 5th year option, $16 mill last year with the new contract they'd have had to sign him to and $16 mill more this year) to and thus would not have been able to do anywhere near what they've done on the OL this year. Half of what we had to spend in FA this year.

 

Money was a huge factor in that decision.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Thurman#1

[mannc]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

... and that they'd have about $44 mill less to spend in FA this year  ($12 mill in 2017 for the 5th year option, $16 mill last year with the new contract they'd have had to sign him to and $16 mill more this year) to and thus would not have been able to do anywhere near what they've done on the OL this year.

No, the fifth year option would have kicked in in 2018, not 2017.  And it would have been up to the Bills whether to sign him for 2019 and beyond. 

 

And your analysis of the Rams’ decision omits the fact that the Rams netted a 3d round comp pick by letting Watkins leave.

Edited June 27, 2019 by mannc

[eball]

Nearly 89 pages of this thing and it still all comes down to a simple issue no one can prove:

 

Group A:   Going into the 2016 offseason (after they fired Rex) the Bills were talented and a new coach/GM didn't need to tear down the roster.  They should have continued to build with Sammy, Dareus, re-signed Gilmore, kept Darby, and drafted Mahomes or Watson.  If they had done that we wouldn't be going into year 3 "hoping" things work out.

 

Group B:  A new coach and GM should have the right to mold a team in their image, and many players who were on the Bills' roster when McBeane arrived didn't fit what they want to build so they moved those players out and began a reshaping of the roster.  They drafted their QB a year later and have now completely overturned the personnel.  With solid drafts and lots of FA activity this offseason the team is poised to take a large step forward.

 

That's it.  Group A will never be proven right or wrong because what they want didn't happen.  If the Bills don't show marked improvement this season and become a regular playoff participant none of it will matter and Group B will be disappointed as well.

 

The biggest gripe I have in this whole discussion is with those who act as though McBeane are not following through on a specific plan -- as if they're just shooting from the hip and are clueless.  Whether you like or agree with the plan is irrelevant; there is most certainly a plan, and these are not stupid men.

 

Either option was possible.  Nobody is absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

 

Let's try and get another 50 pages out of this thing.

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

His point is Watkins is loads better than Jones.

 

As for Jones's numbers last season, somebody had to catch the ball on the team full of piss poor recievers. 

 

 

If that's his point, he again failed to make it. More potential, probably.

 

Who else was on the team had nothing to do with it. Zay made the catches, catches from three different QBs none of whom was exactly a Pat Mahomes. And Zay was healthy for the whole year. And improved a ton later in the year as well. We don't know what Zay is going to be. He could greatly improve this year. This looks to be the first year he's ever been to training camp.

 

And like it or not, money is a huge, huge factor in NFL personnel decisions, and Zay is going into his third year and will make about 1/16th of what Sammy will make this year.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Thurman#1

[GunnerBill]

39 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

Zay is in the top hundred WRs in the world right now. 

 

Hmm. If he is it is by the skin of his teeth. He is, by my reckoning, the 4th best receiver on the Bills - not reknowned as a team staked with receiving talent. Repeated across the 32 NFL teams that would have him outside the top 100. That is before we factor in kids who are still in college who would start in the NFL already if they were eligibile to / had wanted to come out. 

 

Not that it devalues you point. That it isn't like comparing an amateur to the best in the world at something... but still... 

[mannc]

4 minutes ago, eball said:

Nearly 89 pages of this thing and it still all comes down to a simple issue no one can prove:

 

Group A:   Going into the 2016 offseason (after they fired Rex) the Bills were talented and a new coach/GM didn't need to tear down the roster.  They should have continued to build with Sammy, Dareus, re-signed Gilmore, kept Darby, and drafted Mahomes or Watson.  If they had done that we wouldn't be going into year 3 "hoping" things work out.

 

Group B:  A new coach and GM should have the right to mold a team in their image, and many players who were on the Bills' roster when McBeane arrived didn't fit what they want to build so they moved those players out and began a reshaping of the roster.  They drafted their QB a year later and have now completely overturned the personnel.  With solid drafts and lots of FA activity this offseason the team is poised to take a large step forward.

 

That's it.  Group A will never be proven right or wrong because what they want didn't happen.  If the Bills don't show marked improvement this season and become a regular playoff participant none of it will matter and Group B will be disappointed as well.

 

The biggest gripe I have in this whole discussion is with those who act as though McBeane are not following through on a specific plan -- as if they're just shooting from the hip and are clueless.  Whether you like or agree with the plan is irrelevant; there is most certainly a plan, and these are not stupid men.

 

Either option was possible.  Nobody is absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

 

Let's try and get another 50 pages out of this thing.

A. So what?  This is a discussion board and there is a lot of good discussion here.

 

B.  This is not even close to an accurate summary of the views expressed in this thread.

[thebandit27]

31 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

This. The Rams paid Cooks the same money that could have brought them Sammy ... but they also threw in their first round pick. They thought Cooks was worth a first-rounder more than Sammy was.

 

And based on production, they may well have underestimated that difference.

 

No, they did not pay Cooks the same money.

 

Cooks got the same $16M AAV, but he got $20M guaranteed over 5 years, while Watkins got $30M guaranteed over 3 years.

 

That's actually a HUGE difference.

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, mannc said:

A. So what?  This is a discussion board and there is a lot of good discussion here.

 

B.  This is not even close to an accurate summary of the views expressed in this thread.

 

I think they have got close to eball's version of B in the last 30 pages or so...... (? yep, the last 30 pages folks....) ..... but you are right that is certainly not where the argument in B started out. It started as complete faith in the regime and theirs was the one true path and all none believers should be banished from the kingdom. I do think the debate has generally improved though. 

 

The thread should be renamed "The State of the Bills: 2019" because we have pretty much dissected and debated every one of the key decisions made by this regime from minute 1 and their impact on the present and future. I have enjoyed it. I just hope the thread doesn't fall tantilisingly short of 3 figures in page count....

[mannc]

6 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

No, they did not pay Cooks the same money.

 

Cooks got the same $16M AAV, but he got $20M guaranteed over 5 years, while Watkins got $30M guaranteed over 3 years.

 

That's actually a HUGE difference.

I think Cooks got $50M guaranteed...

[thebandit27]

5 minutes ago, mannc said:

I think Cooks got $50M guaranteed...

 

If you count "potential guarantees" (which aren't really guaranteed), then yes.  Because that would factor in his 2019 option bonus and 2020 roster bonus, both of which didn't guarantee until 3/15/19, and his 2020 base salary, which doesn't become fully-guaranteed until next March.

 

If you're talking fully-guaranteed money at signing, the number is $20M:

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/los-angeles-rams/brandin-cooks-14429/

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

If you count "potential guarantees" (which aren't really guaranteed), then yes.  Because that would factor in his 2019 option bonus and 2020 roster bonus, both of which didn't guarantee until 3/15/19, and his 2020 base salary, which doesn't become fully-guaranteed until next March.

 

If you're talking fully-guaranteed money at signing, the number is $20M:

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/los-angeles-rams/brandin-cooks-14429/

 

Yep. We had that issue on here with the Tyler Kroft contract too. The most relevant number is always guaranteed at signing. That is the bit that the team is on the hook for no matter what. 

[Thurman#1]

38 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Hmm. If he is it is by the skin of his teeth. He is, by my reckoning, the 4th best receiver on the Bills - not reknowned as a team staked with receiving talent. Repeated across the 32 NFL teams that would have him outside the top 100. That is before we factor in kids who are still in college who would start in the NFL already if they were eligibile to / had wanted to come out. 

 

Not that it devalues you point. That it isn't like comparing an amateur to the best in the world at something... but still... 

 

 

Quite a few kids in college who will probably play at Zay's level within the next few years. 50 maybe? More. But as for guys who are right now better than Zay? Right now? 10? Maybe. How many college guys come in and manage a season as a rookie like 652 yards and 7 TDs as rookies? Now how many of those could do it without training camp? One? Two?

 

I don't think he is the #4 on the Bills. My guess is he's #3. We'll see. You could be right, but so could I.

 

We can agree to disagree, but yeah, I think he's top 100. 59th in yards last year. 55th in receptions. Tied for 16th in TDs. And did a lot better near the end than in the beginning. Absolutely top 100, IMO.

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Quite a few kids in college who will probably play at Zay's level within the next few years. 50 maybe? More. But as for guys who are right now better than Zay? Right now? 10? Maybe. How many college guys come in and manage a season as a rookie like 652 yards and 7 TDs as rookies? Now how many of those could do it without training camp? One? Two?

 

I don't think he is the #4 on the Bills. My guess is he's #3. We'll see. You could be right, but so could I.

 

We can agree to disagree, but yeah, I think he's top 100. 59th in yards last year. 55th in receptions. Tied for 16th in TDs. And did a lot better near the end than in the beginning. Absolutely top 100, IMO.

 

My response would simply be to say that after that year, which in bare numbers terms looked like an encouraging step, the Bills went and signed FAs in the two positions he played last year - the Y and the Z. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

56 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Hmm. If he is it is by the skin of his teeth. He is, by my reckoning, the 4th best receiver on the Bills - not reknowned as a team staked with receiving talent. Repeated across the 32 NFL teams that would have him outside the top 100. That is before we factor in kids who are still in college who would start in the NFL already if they were eligibile to / had wanted to come out. 

 

Not that it devalues you point. That it isn't like comparing an amateur to the best in the world at something... but still... 

 

You're talking about the Bills current WR corps? 

 

Must be, because Zay led the Bills in both receiving yards and # of receptions last year

 

Very hard to tell what some of the new additions would have managed with Allen throwing to them and last year's offense.  We'll see.

 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

You're talking about the Bills current WR corps? 

 

 

Yes as of right now. 

[Thurman#1]

44 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

No, they did not pay Cooks the same money.

 

Cooks got the same $16M AAV, but he got $20M guaranteed over 5 years, while Watkins got $30M guaranteed over 3 years.

 

That's actually a HUGE difference.

 

 

Huge? Hardly. But yeah, it's a difference but not in money per year, which is what I was comparing. 

 

And the devil is in the details. Cooks is likely to be there three years before they have a good chance to cut him. Yeah, on signing Cooks only got $20 mill guaranteed. But on the opening day of the league year this March just passed, another $21 mill was guaranteed for Cooks. 

 

Not significantly different over the first three years, and Cooks is pretty much a sure thing to be there for three years unless they want to pay $21 mill in dead cap.

[SoTier]

Well said!          Unfortunately, you will be crucified here for daring to say that maybe the emperor in his new suit looks very much like a guy in a birthday suit.

 

In the era of the salary cap, reasonable rookie salaries, and expensive veteran players, the time frame for building a team has been shortened considerably, and that means that teams have to be aces on player evaluations so that they don't let Stephon Gilmore or Robert Woods walk in FA without having youngsters already on the roster who can step in or continually waste draft picks trading up for Day 2 and Day 3 prospects.   They cannot build an OL via FA nor can they afford to trade away really talented players for used athletic equipment because they're difficult to deal with.

 

Almost all the  good teams -- teams that have regularly gone to the playoffs and won there, including several of the recent Super Bowl participants and winners -- in the last two decades that had a several poor seasons and changed coaches/gms have made turnarounds within two or three seasons of bringing in the new leadership because they opted to build on their existing talent rather than start from scratch.   Off hand, I can't think of any team in the last decade or two that  completed a successful rebuild that took 4 or 5 years just to see positive results.

[Thurman#1]

9 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

My response would simply be to say that after that year, which in bare numbers terms looked like an encouraging step, the Bills went and signed FAs in the two positions he played last year - the Y and the Z. 

 

 

And my response would be that they brought in plenty too many OLs too. They like competition. And had two receivers last year they thought fit in with their long-term plans as more than bubble guys or development plays, in Zay and Foster. Of course they brought in competition and numbers. And Zay could play slot and the others might move around depending how things fall out.

[Bill from NYC]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

There's no sense in making the analogy of Zay is to Watkins as you are to Garcia. More like Zay is to Watkins as the guitarist of Fish is to Garcia. Zay is in the top hundred WRs in the world right now. I'm guessing you don't fit at that level as a guitarist. (If you're in the top hundred, tell me, and I'll take it all back.

 

10x more talented simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

Watkins didn't have more yards or TDs than Zay did last year. And yet Watkins made about 20x Zay's salary. Getting rid of Sammy was whip-smart GMing, especially as it helped bring in Josh Allen.

I'm sorry.....did my little dash of hyperbole make your head spin around to the point where you took it literally? OK, I'll rephrase it and make it easier to comprehend.

 

Watkins (who once again I did not want the Bills to draft) is more talented than Zay at every phase of the wr position and it isn't close. The Bills seemed to agree at one point when it cost them 2 first round picks and a 4th to acquire his services.

 

Watkins, injuries notwithstanding is a super talented wr. Jones is just ok imo, at least up until now.

 

Jmo and once again I'm sorry for the confusion and the nervous frustration my post seem to cause.