Cowboys and Dak reach deal

[Alphadawg7]

17 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I can't disagree with this. I think they have some serious coaching issues, however, and that makes the problems worse. And the owner is always going to be a problem. I mean, they are paying a ton of money to what is now a league-average running back. He has a $14 million cap hit and a $24 million dead cap hit this upcoming season. A lot of guys who we think of as JAGs could equal his production too (4.0 ypc and under 7 yards per reception).

 

Totally agree with this too

[Alphadawg7]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Dak is the best player on the roster though. They screwed the pooch not signing him two years ago when he wanted $32m AAV.

 

I cant really disagree with this, at $32M I think that would have been a great spot for him until his next contract.  And even though I am critical of Dak in terms of the upper elite pay category he is in, I recognize the kid is a good football player still.  

 

There are just some guys that can not lift their teams above their other deficiencies.  And so far, I think Dak falls into that category, but there is still plenty of career to change this perception.  That place where the Stafford, Rivers, Ryans, etc have lived.  Guys who can put up individual statistical achievements, but still not win enough because the team around them wasn't strong enough.  Then you have guys like Brady, Rodgers, and Wilson for example that win despite having bad deficiencies such as bad defenses, weak OL, poor weapons to work with, etc.  They are so good and so clutch they can win with just about any personnel on the field.  They wont always win the SB, but they are a perennial contender despite what the rest of the roster looks like.  

 

If I am paying a guy a cap killing contract, I want that guy to be my field general.  Its easier said than done to get one of those guys clearly, so I get why Dallas has to pay what is in front of them too.  

 

Bringing this convo home to the Bills, I sincerely believe we have a QB in Josh Allen that is in that elite category of elevating his team beyond its deficiencies.  I mean he just led us to 13-3 record (and lets be honest, should have been 14-2) despite fielding a defense that has no idea how to cover a TE, defense the middle of the field, cant win in the trenches, and struggles badly to defend the run.  

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I cant really disagree with this, at $32M I think that would have been a great spot for him until his next contract.  And even though I am critical of Dak in terms of the upper elite pay category he is in, I recognize the kid is a good football player still.  

 

There are just some guys that can not lift their teams above their other deficiencies.  And so far, I think Dak falls into that category, but there is still plenty of career to change this perception.  That place where the Stafford, Rivers, Ryans, etc have lived.  Guys who can put up individual statistical achievements, but still not win enough because the team around them wasn't strong enough.  Then you have guys like Brady, Rodgers, and Wilson for example that win despite having bad deficiencies such as bad defenses, weak OL, poor weapons to work with, etc.  They are so good and so clutch they can win with just about any personnel on the field.  They wont always win the SB, but they are a perennial contender despite what the rest of the roster looks like.  

 

If I am paying a guy a cap killing contract, I want that guy to be my field general.  Its easier said than done to get one of those guys clearly, so I get why Dallas has to pay what is in front of them too.  

 

Bringing this convo home to the Bills, I sincerely believe we have a QB in Josh Allen that is in that elite category of elevating his team beyond its deficiencies.  I mean he just led us to 13-3 record (and lets be honest, should have been 14-2) despite fielding a defense that has no idea how to cover a TE, defense the middle of the field, cant win in the trenches, and struggles badly to defend the run.  

 

But you either pay the guys who are in that next tier or you don't have a Quarterback. The argument doesn't change. If you pay them when their time comes within two years they are reasonable value. That is just the market. 

[dave mcbride]

21 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But you either pay the guys who are in that next tier or you don't have a Quarterback. The argument doesn't change. If you pay them when their time comes within two years they are reasonable value. That is just the market. 

Translated: the Bills should absolutely pay Allen now, and it shouldn't be a debate. 

[Alphadawg7]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But you either pay the guys who are in that next tier or you don't have a Quarterback. The argument doesn't change. If you pay them when their time comes within two years they are reasonable value. That is just the market. 

 

I don't disagree with that.  But I would say, when you make the mistake and miss the chance to lock them up more reasonably, you are potentially doubling down on that mistake by over paying them later.  

 

For example, Kirk Cousins and the WFT were in a similar showdown.  And while the WFT is still in the rebuilding process and has not adequately replaced Cousins yet, they are on a better trajectory because they did not cave and pay Cousins.  If I am WFT, I would rather be where they are now and have guys like Chase Young on the roster than still having Kirk Cousins.  Yes, they still need to solve the QB position, but Cousins clearly was not going to get them anywhere either.  (Yes I know Dak is also better than Kirk, but just saying it was a similar situation). 

 

I think the bigger issue is Jerry Jones and just not having the stomach to rebuild.  If I was a GM in Dallas, I wouldn't be afraid to tear it down and rebuild the cap and roster.  I don't think Jerry Jones wants to even remotely consider doing that despite just twisting in the wind of mediocrity for over a decade.  

[dave mcbride]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I don't disagree with that.  But I would say, when you make the mistake and miss the chance to lock them up more reasonably, you are potentially doubling down on that mistake by over paying them later.  

 

For example, Kirk Cousins and the WFT were in a similar showdown.  And while the WFT is still in the rebuilding process and has not adequately replaced Cousins yet, they are on a better trajectory because they did not cave and pay Cousins.  If I am WFT, I would rather be where they are now and have guys like Chase Young on the roster than still having Kirk Cousins.  Yes, they still need to solve the QB position, but Cousins clearly was not going to get them anywhere either.  (Yes I know Dak is also better than Kirk, but just saying it was a similar situation). 

 

I think the bigger issue is Jerry Jones and just not having the stomach to rebuild.  If I was a GM in Dallas, I wouldn't be afraid to tear it down and rebuild the cap and roster.  I don't think Jerry Jones wants to even remotely consider doing that despite just twisting in the wind of mediocrity for over a decade.  

Cousins is good enough to take you pretty far with an elite defense. He's not great, but he's *so* much better than what Washington rolled out there after he left. 

[HappyDays]

23 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Cousins is good enough to take you pretty far with an elite defense. He's not great, but he's *so* much better than what Washington rolled out there after he left. 

 

I think Cousins is in the worst tier of QBs, the one just good enough to make the playoffs but just bad enough to never give you a championship. Having a QB in that tier is actively worse than having a bad QB because it prevents you from looking to improve the position and you basically tread water for a few years. Minnesota has put some really good teams around him over the years and he's never been able to elevate them to the level needed to win a Super Bowl.

[GoBills808]

22 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I think Cousins is in the worst tier of QBs, the one just good enough to make the playoffs but just bad enough to never give you a championship. Having a QB in that tier is actively worse than having a bad QB because it prevents you from looking to improve the position and you basically tread water for a few years. Minnesota has put some really good teams around him over the years and he's never been able to elevate them to the level needed to win a Super Bowl.

ie Prescott

[HappyDays]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

ie Prescott

 

I put Prescott in a tier above that. He has shown he can lead a top offense, the problem is his defenses and coaching have been bottom barrel. I mean Mike McCarthy only made it to a single Super Bowl with Aaron Rodgers in his prime. I suppose eventually Prescott will have a real head coach and a solid defense and then maybe he will prove to be championship caliber.

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I put Prescott in a tier above that. He has shown he can lead a top offense, the problem is his defenses and coaching have been bottom barrel. I mean Mike McCarthy only made it to a single Super Bowl with Aaron Rodgers in his prime. I suppose eventually Prescott will have a real head coach and a solid defense and then maybe he will prove to be championship caliber.

IMO Prescott and Cousins are interchangeable by the definition you gave (which I agree with btw)

 

From a pure statistical analysis you can  make the argument that Cousins is superior to Prescott. Neither is a quarterback I would commit to long term because of their limitations.

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

Cousins is good enough to take you pretty far with an elite defense. He's not great, but he's *so* much better than what Washington rolled out there after he left. 

 

Its not a matter of did the QB after him play as well, its about is the team in a better position to win.  There is no way WFT would be a contender right now if Cousins would have stayed.  Instead, they are now on a better path towards future success.  Minnesota isnt winning any more, in fact, winning less, with Cousins than they did with lower priced journeyman QB's.  

 

 

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

Cousins is good enough to take you pretty far with an elite defense. He's not great, but he's *so* much better than what Washington rolled out there after he left. 

 

I agree. I don't buy that WFT has done better. Minnesota have won playoff games with Kirk. WFT made the playoffs, sure, but as a 7-9 after 3 consecutive losing seasons and still with no Quarterback. 

 

I just don't buy that if you don't have a top 5 QB you should just prefer to be bad. Jimmy G made a Superbowl last year, not on a rookie deal and he is worse than Cousins and Dak. Nick Foles won a Superbowl and he is a backup. 

 

If you have a top 5 QB you are a contender almost every year. You are not that with Dak but he has never had a losing season until being 2-3 and getting hurt, he has won 2 divisions and won a playoff game in his first 4 years. How many QBs in the league right now can match that? It isn't that many. I get that the market means the guys like Dak (8th-12th) best QB get money that puts them in the mix with the top 5 or 6 guys and that hurts because it means you take probably one extra good starter off your cap... but it is what it is. The alternative is suckitude and I don't think being Washington is something to aspire to, even though I love their front 4 first rounders. Even with no QB they are going to find it impossible to keep that 4 together.

2 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

Translated: the Bills should absolutely pay Allen now, and it shouldn't be a debate. 

 

100%. Pay them early. It never gets cheaper. Even with the cap going down and Dak coming off an injury... his price went up. Basic supply and demand economics. Not enough supply, too much demand.

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Its not a matter of did the QB after him play as well, its about is the team in a better position to win.  There is no way WFT would be a contender right now if Cousins would have stayed.  Instead, they are now on a better path towards future success.  Minnesota isnt winning any more, in fact, winning less, with Cousins than they did with lower priced journeyman QB's.  

 

I mean they are not winning anymore than Case Keenum's career year. But Keenum played darn well that year. Do you honestly think had they kept Keenum he'd have outperformed Kirk the past 3 years, or they'd have won more games? I don't. 

 

That isn't to say I love Kirk Cousins, I don't. I was verciferous in my view that the Bills should not pursue him as a FA but Minnesota was out of position to draft a guy, and had a roster too good to suck, so you find the best vet you can and try to make a run. It hasn't worked out and the probably are a year away from a tear down (and maybe a house clearing) but the decision to sign Cousins when they did was a good one... and they actually have more chance of getting up in this draft for a QB than Washington if they were so inclined. 

[HappyDays]

28 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

I just don't buy that if you don't have a top 5 QB you should just prefer to be bad. Jimmy G made a Superbowl last year, not on a rookie deal and he is worse than Cousins and Dak. Nick Foles won a Superbowl and he is a backup. 

 

I think the NFL has changed radically just over the last 2 years. Really with the appearance of Mahomes in the league. In my mind it is now impossible to win a Super Bowl without top 5 QB play. It used to be more difficult but possible. Now you're not beating anyone in the Mahomes tier without someone capable of matching him. Garrappolo is a great example. He had an elite run game and defense backing him. Didn't matter because eventually Mahomes just outpaced him. Brady is the counterexample. If he had played at an average level I bet the Chiefs would have gotten back into it. So no I don't think it is worth trying to win with the Cousins and the Garrappolos of the league. If your QB isn't capable of playing at a top 5 level, use every resource you have to find someone better. Prescott I do think is capable of playing at that level, he is just going need to need a better team around him to be successful, and to be fair that's true of all QBs including Mahomes.

Edited March 10, 2021 by HappyDays

[FireChans]

3 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I don't disagree with that.  But I would say, when you make the mistake and miss the chance to lock them up more reasonably, you are potentially doubling down on that mistake by over paying them later.  

 

For example, Kirk Cousins and the WFT were in a similar showdown.  And while the WFT is still in the rebuilding process and has not adequately replaced Cousins yet, they are on a better trajectory because they did not cave and pay Cousins.  If I am WFT, I would rather be where they are now and have guys like Chase Young on the roster than still having Kirk Cousins.  Yes, they still need to solve the QB position, but Cousins clearly was not going to get them anywhere either.  (Yes I know Dak is also better than Kirk, but just saying it was a similar situation). 

 

I think the bigger issue is Jerry Jones and just not having the stomach to rebuild.  If I was a GM in Dallas, I wouldn't be afraid to tear it down and rebuild the cap and roster.  I don't think Jerry Jones wants to even remotely consider doing that despite just twisting in the wind of mediocrity for over a decade.  

Washington has won 17 games in 3 seasons. Let’s not go crazy about their “trajectory.”

[Chicken Boo]

2 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Washington has won 17 games in 3 seasons. Let’s not go crazy about their “trajectory.”

 

They're a QB away.  Tall order, I know, but that roster is stacked on both sides of the ball!

[FireChans]

2 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

I think Cousins is in the worst tier of QBs, the one just good enough to make the playoffs but just bad enough to never give you a championship. Having a QB in that tier is actively worse than having a bad QB because it prevents you from looking to improve the position and you basically tread water for a few years. Minnesota has put some really good teams around him over the years and he's never been able to elevate them to the level needed to win a Super Bowl.

Washington has drafted one QB since losing Cousins.

[FireChans]

2 minutes ago, Chicken Boo said:

 

They're a QB away.  Tall order, I know, but that roster is stacked on both sides of the ball!

For who? Certainly not the previous FO and HC who thought letting Cousins walk was a “smart” move.

[dave mcbride]

2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Its not a matter of did the QB after him play as well, its about is the team in a better position to win.  There is no way WFT would be a contender right now if Cousins would have stayed.  Instead, they are now on a better path towards future success.  Minnesota isnt winning any more, in fact, winning less, with Cousins than they did with lower priced journeyman QB's.  

 

 

They beat an elite Saints team last year (and Cousins delivered big time late in the game) but then ran into a juggernaut in the 2019 Niners. In most any other year, that Vikings team had a chance to get to the SB. Remember that SF disemboweled GB the next week too. 

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

 

I think the NFL has changed radically just over the last 2 years. Really with the appearance of Mahomes in the league. In my mind it is now impossible to win a Super Bowl without top 5 QB play. It used to be more difficult but possible. Now you're not beating anyone in the Mahomes tier without someone capable of matching him. Garrappolo is a great example. He had an elite run game and defense backing him. Didn't matter because eventually Mahomes just outpaced him. Brady is the counterexample. If he had played at an average level I bet the Chiefs would have gotten back into it. So no I don't think it is worth trying to win with the Cousins and the Garrappolos of the league. If your QB isn't capable of playing at a top 5 level, use every resource you have to find someone better. Prescott I do think is capable of playing at that level, he is just going need to need a better team around him to be successful, and to be fair that's true of all QBs including Mahomes.

Sucking sucks. @GunnerBill is totally right about that. And Sabres fans should know it too. 

[Alphadawg7]

2 hours ago, FireChans said:

Washington has won 17 games in 3 seasons. Let’s not go crazy about their “trajectory.”

 

Yeah its called a rebuild, so I dont care about years 1 and 2.  They have a new staff and some impressive young players in place on both sides of the ball with a good cap.  I would much rather be the team they are right now then the team they would be if they kept Kirk Cousins and paid him that money.  

[Doc Brown]

17 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Yeah its called a rebuild, so I dont care about years 1 and 2.  They have a new staff and some impressive young players in place on both sides of the ball with a good cap.  I would much rather be the team they are right now then the team they would be if they kept Kirk Cousins and paid him that money.  

The same year the Skins released Cousins they signed Alex Smith to a 4 year 94 million dollar deal (71 million guaranteed) and his cap hit went up each season he was there.  They also gave up a 3rd round pick for him.  They weren't in rebuild mode at the time.

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Yeah its called a rebuild, so I dont care about years 1 and 2.  They have a new staff and some impressive young players in place on both sides of the ball with a good cap.  I would much rather be the team they are right now then the team they would be if they kept Kirk Cousins and paid him that money.  

They have had Alex Smith’s corpse on the roster with a massive cap hit.....

56 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

The same year the Skins released Cousins they signed Alex Smith to a 4 year 94 million dollar deal (71 million guaranteed) and his cap hit went up each season he was there.  They also gave up a 3rd round pick for him.  They weren't in rebuild mode at the time.

Breaking, losing 13 games and everyone getting fired is just a rebuild planned out by all the dudes who got fired.

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

Breaking, losing 13 games and everyone getting fired is just a rebuild planned out by all the dudes who got fired.

Maybe I misread his post but I interpreted it as the Skins dumped Cousins because they didn't want to have his salary and start a rebuild.  That's just not true given the money they spent on Alex Smith that same off-season who wasn't that far off from Cousins as far as average annual salary goes.  

[GunnerBill]

I think the "I'd rather have cap space and some young players and consecutive losing seasons than pay a Quarterback" is kind of the way Bills fans have been conditioned to think by all the losing. Cap space, and top 10 picks and comp selections and a new regime all the things that allow fans to hope that there are better times just around the corner. The Bills did little but sell hope for 15 years. 

 

But you have to try to win. That is the NFL. If all but the 6 teams with top end Quarterbacks was more interested in sucking the league would be barely watchable the way the Bills were barely watchable for 15 years. That isn't to say there doesn't come a time for each franchise to rip it down and rebuild but even if that was Washington's plan when they let Cousins go (it wasn't and they tried to keep him remember, they just made a horlicks of the whole situation) if 4 years later you still don't have your answer at Quarterback then that is not a success. 

[FireChans]

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

I think the "I'd rather have cap space and some young players and consecutive losing seasons than pay a Quarterback" is kind of the way Bills fans have been conditioned to think by all the losing. Cap space, and top 10 picks and comp selections and a new regime all the things that allow fans to hope that there are better times just around the corner. The Bills did little but sell hope for 15 years. 

 

But you have to try to win. That is the NFL. If all but the 6 teams with top end Quarterbacks was more interested in sucking the league would be barely watchable the way the Bills were barely watchable for 15 years. That isn't to say there doesn't come a time for each franchise to rip it down and rebuild but even if that was Washington's plan when they let Cousins go (it wasn't and they tried to keep him remember, they just made a horlicks of the whole situation) if 4 years later you still don't have your answer at Quarterback then that is not a success. 

There’s also this weird “patient” view when it comes to other franchises.

 

Like the WFT is just slowly rising up after letting Kirk walk, instead of firing their GM, firing their HC a year later, drafting a first round QB and cutting him. 
 

GM’s and HC’s don’t get 10 years. They aren’t taking this weird long view.

[C.Biscuit97]

13 hours ago, FireChans said:

For who? Certainly not the previous FO and HC who thought letting Cousins walk was a “smart” move.

Cousins is nit worth what he is getting paid. 

[FireChans]

6 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Cousins is nit worth what he is getting paid. 

This is what you and @Alphadawg7 don’t seem to understand. Being overpaid does not mean “we are better off letting you walk.”

 

Half of the players in the NFL are overpaid. 10 years ago, we “overpaid” for Mario Williams. He was our best defensive player and an All-Pro. That’s Free Agency. That’s the NFL.

 

The NFL has a fixed number of wins possible and every year, 31 other teams are trying to steal yours. If you let a talented player walk at the most important position, and you fail to adequately replace him 4 years later, with multiple losing seasons, YOU FAILED.

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, FireChans said:

This is what you and @Alphadawg7 don’t seem to understand. Being overpaid does not mean “we are better off letting you walk.”

 

Half of the players in the NFL are overpaid. 10 years ago, we “overpaid” for Mario Williams. He was our best defensive player and an All-Pro. That’s Free Agency. That’s the NFL.

 

The NFL has a fixed number of wins possible and every year, 31 other teams are trying to steal yours. If you let a talented player walk at the most important position, and you fail to adequately replace him 4 years later, with multiple losing seasons, YOU FAILED.

 

Yea the Quarterback market sucks for teams with vet guys who are in that 7-15 range. Because it doesn't adequately reflect the difference in value between a top 6 Quarterback - and there is a clear top 6 in the league right now - and a guy in that next "above average NFL starter to very good NFL QB" range. You only have to pay $2m more than Kirk is getting and you could have Russell Wilson!! But there is no alternative. The alternative is screaming stop the world I want to get off while spinning your tires with one legged Alex Smith and Colt McCoy drafting Dwayne Haskins in a pretty awful Quarterback class. 

[Alphadawg7]

8 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Maybe I misread his post but I interpreted it as the Skins dumped Cousins because they didn't want to have his salary and start a rebuild.  That's just not true given the money they spent on Alex Smith that same off-season who wasn't that far off from Cousins as far as average annual salary goes.  

Smith was short term compared to what Cousins wanted and a guy to place hold while they found a young QB to groom.  And clearly they felt he was a better option than paying what Cousins wanted which was top of the market money.  

Edited March 10, 2021 by Alphadawg7

[CincyBillsFan]

14 hours ago, Chicken Boo said:

 

They're a QB away.  Tall order, I know, but that roster is stacked on both sides of the ball!

 

The Bills were a QB away for over 20 years.  That tall order can be as high as Mount Everest.

 

 

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

This is what you and @Alphadawg7 don’t seem to understand. Being overpaid does not mean “we are better off letting you walk.”

 

Half of the players in the NFL are overpaid. 10 years ago, we “overpaid” for Mario Williams. He was our best defensive player and an All-Pro. That’s Free Agency. That’s the NFL.

 

The NFL has a fixed number of wins possible and every year, 31 other teams are trying to steal yours. If you let a talented player walk at the most important position, and you fail to adequately replace him 4 years later, with multiple losing seasons, YOU FAILED.

I get what you are saying except what you are proposing has not ever worked.  Show me one Super Bowl champion who had a mid tier QB who was one of the few highest paid QBs in the NFL at the time of the championship.  
 

I mean, maybe I am missing one, but I don’t think it’s ever happened and looking at the list of last super bowl winners the last 30 years I can’t see any that jump out to me.  Yes, plenty of mid tier QBs have won Super Bowls, even bottom third guys like Dilfer.  But  none of them had top paid elite player contracts like what Cousins was seeking, like what guys such as Kap, Tannehill (in Miami), Cousins, etc got at the time they received them.  And those guys won a SB because they have very talented rosters all around them with high priced elite players at many other positions because they did not have a huge QB contract choking their cap.
 

I play to win Super Bowls, that’s is the one and only objective of Football.  I am not remotely interested in fielding a moderately competitive team for 10 years.  
 

So for me, I would rather rebuild which HAS led to several super bowl titles then dump huge amounts of money into a QB that’s not worth that money and will prevent the team from putting a Super Bowl roster together due to the cap issues of paying a player who can’t carry you through the inevitable roster deficiencies it creates.  
 

But again, that’s just my philosophy because I hate losing so much and am super competitive.  And the only thing that counts as winning for me is legitimately competing for championships...not just winning records in the regular season.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Alphadawg7

[Alphadawg7]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

I think the "I'd rather have cap space and some young players and consecutive losing seasons than pay a Quarterback" is kind of the way Bills fans have been conditioned to think by all the losing. Cap space, and top 10 picks and comp selections and a new regime all the things that allow fans to hope that there are better times just around the corner. The Bills did little but sell hope for 15 years. 

 

But you have to try to win. That is the NFL. If all but the 6 teams with top end Quarterbacks was more interested in sucking the league would be barely watchable the way the Bills were barely watchable for 15 years. That isn't to say there doesn't come a time for each franchise to rip it down and rebuild but even if that was Washington's plan when they let Cousins go (it wasn't and they tried to keep him remember, they just made a horlicks of the whole situation) if 4 years later you still don't have your answer at Quarterback then that is not a success. 

Actually you are wrong, we rarely had a top pick in the draft.  We suffered through many 6-8 win seasons always missing in being in the right slot to get that elite talent or QB in the draft.  And the occasional times we did have good draft slots we did not have a competent staff and front office to utilize those picks.

 

The Bills are an exact example of why it’s dumb to keep playing for mediocrity. It was not until Beane came in and said tear it all down, get rid of everyone, clear the cap out and get into position anyway we can to get a QB.  
 

McD turned out to be a great coach who could get the most out of his roster and shocked everyone making the playoffs right away.  But Beane still had traded lots of other of what at the time was considered as our better players to get the draft ammo to instead move up to get our guy since our record didn’t get us there.  
 

But it was not until a real GM came in and committed to fully clearing the whole roster and cap out before we truly turned the corner.  It of course takes a talented front office and staff to also successfully find the right pieces after that, but none of it happens if we didn’t have Beane start clearing it all out where 3 years later there to today there isn’t a single player still on the roster from the past regime.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Alphadawg7

[BuffaloBill]

On 3/8/2021 at 6:55 PM, atlbillsfan1975 said:

Can not wait to see the details of the extension. Could have implications on Allen negotiations.

 

 

My first thought exactly

[Chandler#81]

[GoBills808]

Didn't WFT just win the division and make the playoffs?

[GunnerBill]

23 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Actually you are wrong, we rarely had a top pick in the draft.  We suffered through many 6-8 win seasons always missing in being in the right slot to get that elite talent or QB in the draft.  And the occasional times we did have good draft slots we did not have a competent staff and front office to utilize those picks.

 

The Bills are an exact example of why it’s dumb to keep playing for mediocrity. It was not until Beane came in and said tear it all down, get rid of everyone, clear the cap out and get into position anyway we can to get a QB.  
 

McD turned out to be a great coach who could get the most out of his roster and shocked everyone making the playoffs right away.  But Beane still had traded lots of other of what at the time was considered as our better players to get the draft ammo to instead move up to get our guy since our record didn’t get us there.  
 

But it was not until a real GM came in and committed to fully clearing the whole roster and cap out before we truly turned the corner.  It of course takes a talented front office and staff to also successfully find the right pieces after that, but none of it happens if we didn’t have Beane start clearing it all out where 3 years later there to today there isn’t a single player still on the roster from the past regime.

 

Agreed, the Bills didn't bottom out but we are not talking about teams spinning their wheels at 6-10 we are talking about teams who are having double digit win seasons and making the playoffs. In the drought the Bills only actually got to 8 wins three times: 2004 (9-7); 2014 (9-7); 2015 (8-8). We rarely had top 3 picks but we picked between 8th and 12th plenty. If your argument is a team like Dallas, who before their QB snapped his ankle in half had behind that QB had three winning seasons and one 8-8, should tear it down to chase an elite QB in the draft that isn't comparable to where the Bills were at all. Dallas's roster is not without its faults but it really isn't a tear down roster, especially when they already have a top 10 QB although not an elite guy. If every team who were there tried to rebuild the league would be unwatchable because you'd have over half in rebuild mode at any one time. Tear it down, rebuild, and try to snag a top 5 type QB is not the only way to win in the NFL. And let's remember the team who did the ultimate tear down - Cleveland - still ended up with Baker... who is at best in the Dak tier not the elite tier. So what if you tear it all down and end up back in the same place? Tear it down again? That isn't the league and if it was it would be a whole darn lot less successful as a product. The Bills did a great job, no question. But every situation is different. There is no "one way to win" in the NFL. 

46 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

I play to win Super Bowls, that’s is the one and only objective of Football.  I am not remotely interested in fielding a moderately competitive team for 10 years.  

 

So for me, I would rather rebuild which HAS led to several super bowl titles then dump huge amounts of money into a QB that’s not worth that money and will prevent the team from putting a Super Bowl roster together due to the cap issues of paying a player who can’t carry you through the inevitable roster deficiencies it creates.  
 

But again, that’s just my philosophy because I hate losing so much and am super competitive.  And the only thing that counts as winning for me is legitimately competing for championships...not just winning records in the regular season.

 

I get the "if this guy can't win me a Superbowl then I'm starting over" but I think it is slightly revisionist. Because back in 2017 you didn't want to take a Quarterback because you thought we could make the playoffs with Tyrod. I think you are seeing it through the lens of where the Bills are now. 

 

As for who was the expensive non-elite guy who won a Superbowl? Eli Manning. 

[Alphadawg7]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Agreed, the Bills didn't bottom out but we are not talking about teams spinning their wheels at 6-10 we are talking about teams who are having double digit win seasons and making the playoffs. In the drought the Bills only actually got to 8 wins three times: 2004 (9-7); 2014 (9-7); 2015 (8-8). We rarely had top 3 picks but we picked between 8th and 12th plenty. If your argument is a team like Dallas, who before their QB snapped his ankle in half had behind that QB had three winning seasons and one 8-8, should tear it down to chase an elite QB in the draft that isn't comparable to where the Bills were at all. Dallas's roster is not without its faults but it really isn't a tear down roster, especially when they already have a top 10 QB although not an elite guy. If every team who were there tried to rebuild the league would be unwatchable because you'd have over half in rebuild mode at any one time. Tear it down, rebuild, and try to snag a top 5 type QB is not the only way to win in the NFL. And let's remember the team who did the ultimate tear down - Cleveland - still ended up with Baker... who is at best in the Dak tier not the elite tier. So what if you tear it all down and end up back in the same place? Tear it down again? That isn't the league and if it was it would be a whole darn lot less successful as a product. The Bills did a great job, no question. But every situation is different. There is no "one way to win" in the NFL. 

Agree there is no one way to win in the NFL as there are many paths and roster makeups that led to championships...

 

But...there is one way to almost guarantee you will never win one because it’s still never happened, and that is to over pay mid tier QB as one of highest players in NFL history.  Literally it’s never ever worked out for any team ever.
 

And most my comments you responded to where pertaining to Cousins whose definitely not as good as Dak.   Dak is closer to that top tier than the Cousins of the world and most my dialogue was in regards to Cousins convo.  My biggest issue in Dallas isnt even Daks contract, it the gross contracts of Cooper and Zeke to go with it.  

 

To answer your Baker question, he was much improved in 2020, good year for the kid for sure.  But if Cleveland has to now pay Baker top 3 money to keep him, I’ll say it right now, he isn’t worth it (at least not yet).  
 

Nothing against Baker, I loved him coming out of college and he’s a good young player.  But I’m not paying him say $42M a year for example after throwing 3500 yards and 27 TDs as more of a game manager role.
 

That offense is anchored by a dominant OL and run game more than it is passing.  His job is more a game manager than it is being the focal

point of the offense.  For me, as improved as Baker was, he hasn’t been on Daks level of productivity yet and isn’t in the same compensation category yet as Dak, or other top paid QBs.  Of course he can still get there, but just saying he’s not at that level yet and would not pay him as if he was.

[GunnerBill]

16 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Agree there is no one way to win in the NFL as there are many paths and roster makeups that led to championships...

 

But...there is one way to almost guarantee you will never win one because it’s still never happened, and that is to over pay mid tier QB as one of highest players in NFL history.  Literally it’s never ever worked out for any team ever.
 

 

So I wouldn't argue Eli was Kirk Cousins when he won the Superbowl in 2007 or 2011, but he was a 7-12 QB - ie. closer to Dak - who got hot in the post season, not a 1-6 QB. He counted for 10% of the cap on the 07 Giants and 11.5% of the cap on the 11 Giants. Dak (even on the covid reduced cap) is 12% of the Cowboys cap in 2021 and if it was the actual expected cap for this year he'd be 10%. 

 

On your Baker point - so what would you do if you were Cleveland? Let's say Baker plays out his rookie deal including 5th year option and they go 10-6; 10-6 or 11-5; 9-7 supported by what we both agree is a good roster. You can't tear that roster down to try and get another QB in the draft and then have to go through 3 years of building it back up again and then rinse and repeat. That is a pretty bad plan. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by GunnerBill

[dave mcbride]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So I wouldn't argue Eli was Kirk Cousins when he won the Superbowl in 2007 or 2011, but he was a 7-12 QB - ie. closer to Dak - who got hot in the post season, not a 1-6 QB. He counted for 10% of the cap on the 07 Giants and 11.5% of the cap on the 11 Giants. Dak (even on the covid reduced cap) is 12% of the Cowboys cap in 2021 and if it was the actual expected cap for this year he'd be 10%. 

 

On your Baker point - so what would you do if you were Cleveland? Let's say Baker plays out his rookie deal including 5th year option and they go 10-6; 10-6 or 11-5; 9-7 supported by what we both agree is a good roster. You can't tear that roster down to try and get another QB in the draft and then have to go through 3 years of building it back up again and then rinse and repeat. That is a pretty bad plan. 

I thought Mayfield played pretty well this year, actually, and I just have a feeling that he's going to last a long time in the league and always be at least pretty good. Given Cleveland's decades-long QB purgatory, "pretty good" is something they should grab and hold onto for dear life and never let it go. 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

I thought Mayfield played pretty well this year, actually, and I just have a feeling that he's going to last a long time in the league and always be at least pretty good. Given Cleveland's decades-long QB purgatory, "pretty good" is something they should grab and hold onto for dear life and never let it go. 

 

Exaclty Cleveland, Chicago and Buffalo are the ultimate examples of it isn't as easy as just find a good quarterback! They don't grow on trees. It sucks for the teams with a 7-15 in the league guy that it costs almost as much as the top 6 guys despite the difference in play being more stark than that but it is what it is. That is the market. You either accept it or you accept lots and lots of losing seasons hoping eventually you hit the jackpot.