RB and WR markets are actually insane.

[Richard Noggin]

11 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

So just to go full circle, the Bills have recently overpaid for wide receivers in free agency who have not yet panned out but they can't reach an agreement with James Cook who was a huge part of the offense and a homegrown guy who had 18 TD last year including runs of 65, 49, 46, and 41 yards.

 

I appreciate that a well-run team has to exercise contract discipline but if they're gonna overpay, who best to overpay?

 

Also, what is the projected return on investment for any given contract?

 

 

Does James Cook project as a guy who will physically hold up with a higher enough workload to justify the big extension he seeks, year after year? Does he project as a guy who will dramatically step up his pass pro reads and physicality so he can stay on the field enough to justify the $$? Will he continue to improve the concentration issues: unforced drops and ball security concerns? Lots of questions.

 

10 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

The downside of the strategy you describe is that the Bills got middling returns on Devin Singletary and Zack Moss and it's too early to say how Ray Davis will pan out.

 

The James Cook pick appears to be a home run and if they let him walk, he'll more likely be replaced with another Singletary/Moss/Davis than another James Cook.

 

The argument implied by many here is that the Bills can get 90% of Cook's productivity at a fraction of the cost... but that 10% productivity loss might be the difference between a true weapon and just another solid back.

 

 

The bolded is the core of this debate. In 2026, is a RB room taking up ~15M cap (Cook on a reasonable, friendlyish first year of his extension, plus Davis and Johnson) that much better than a room taking up ~$6M (Davis, Johnson, and day 2/3 rookie)? Maybe Johnson is gone in this scenario? Not to mention how Cook progresses and what they owe him in future years; Cook's number would have to count more fully against the cap eventually, and that could be about when he's already breaking down or falling off. His brother didn't last long into his 2nd deal, as we all know. Less mileage on this Cook, though. It's a fascinating question. I think I know Beane's most likely answer.

 

[Thurman#1]

20 hours ago, FireChans said:

I’d like to see some supporting evidence that the dollar amount of WR overpays in FA over the last 3 seasons is equivalent to any other position sans QB.

 

the Beasley and Brown contracts were in 2019. The NFL has changed a bit since then.

Amari Cooper wasn’t a free agent.

 

Diggs didn’t play a snap on the extension given to him in 2022, are you being sarcastic that it was worth every penny?

 

 

You'd like to see some evidence that overpays at WR are equivalent?

 

I'd like to see some evidence that they aren't. And there really isn't such a thing, either way, since overpaying is based on opinion. You clearly think WRs are paid too much, so you see overpays everywhere at that position. Your perception isn't something that can be proved. It could maybe be somewhat supported with massive amounts of contract examination. But you'd still be saying that this guy is an overpay in many many cases where someone fair-minded could disagree.

 

"The NFL has changed a bit since [2019]," you say? Exactly correct. "A bit." The NFL changes every year. But a bit of inflation here and there and a re-shuffle in which positions are paid a bit more is NOT some kind of earth-shaking paradigm shift. It's what happens in football all the time. Pretending that 2019 was the stone ages and the Paleolithic era of six years ago shouldn't count is just nonsense. Beas and Brown are much the same type of mid-level contracts the Bills have mostly given receivers, frustrating those who want to see them bring in higher-paid guys. 

 

As Shaw pointed out, this appears to be what the Bills want to do. 

 

And their offense has been terrific, consistently.

 

Cooper indeed wasn't a free agent. Which has nothing to do with how much he was paid and which team acquired him. We got him. Cheap. Other teams didn't. We did. And you know it. You used Diggs as evidence for your side. He was also acquired by trade. And it was indeed worth every penny to take his salary on board. What, only trades that show what you want them to show count, but the ones that don't fit your narrative somehow don't count?

 

Sorry, I somehow had the idea they'd renegotiated Diggs right after the Vikings trade. Fact is, though, that acquiring his reasonably expensive contract was a terrific move. The renegotiation (also not free agency, shouldn't count if only free agency is involved) in 2022 was a failure. But getting him in here in 2020 and paying that contract was a tremendous success.

 

For a tremendous offense.

Edited 1 hour ago by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, Richard Noggin said:

 

Does James Cook project as a guy who will physically hold up with a higher enough workload to justify the big extension he seeks, year after year? Does he project as a guy who will dramatically step up his pass pro reads and physicality so he can stay on the field enough to justify the $$? Will he continue to improve the concentration issues: unforced drops and ball security concerns? Lots of questions.

 

 

The bolded is the core of this debate. In 2026, is a RB room taking up ~15M cap (Cook on a reasonable, friendlyish first year of his extension, plus Davis and Johnson) that much better than a room taking up ~$6M (Davis, Johnson, and day 2/3 rookie)? Maybe Johnson is gone in this scenario? Not to mention how Cook progresses and what they owe him in future years; Cook's number would have to count more fully against the cap eventually, and that could be about when he's already breaking down or falling off. His brother didn't last long into his 2nd deal, as we all know. Less mileage on this Cook, though. It's a fascinating question. I think I know Beane's most likely answer.

 

 

Good points, all.

 

That second paragraph is the part that the "pay him $15M AAV" crowd wants to forget.

 

I too think you know Beane's most likely answer.

[Thurman#1]

4 hours ago, GASabresIUFan said:

I don't think this is an accurate statement.  The Bills have consistently failed to draft and develop difference makers at WR or RB under Beane.  That stems primarily from a significant failure to invest in those positions in the draft early in his Bills GM career.  

 

In Beane first 4 drafts with the Bills he spent 2 picks on RBs (both 3rds) and 5 picks on WRs (a 4th-Davis, 3 6ths, and a 7th). Is it really surprising that none of these players became difference makers?  Hard to have difference makers at the skill positions unless you invest in skill players with premium draft picks.

 

In the next 3 drafts Beane has utilized a 1st and 2 2nds on skill players (Coleman, Cook, and Kincaid).  The jury is still out on Coleman and Kincaid, but Cook is a bona fide star.  Cook is the first legit difference maker at a skill position the Beane drafted besides Josh Allen.  I really like Shakir, but he is just a slot receiver who catches the ball almost strictly underneath. (about 3 yards of AIR per catch)

 

Cook, on the other hand, has two consecutive 1000 Yards season on the ground with over 2800 yards from scrimmage.  The last Bill RB to have those kind of numbers was McCoy and the last Bills draftee to accomplish it for the Bills was McGahee 20 years ago.

 

The funny thing is that this board is ok with paying Shakir 13 mill a season for 4 years after creating 1400 of offense total the last two years with 6 Tds, while not wanting to give Cook a similar deal when he's created 2800 yards and 24 Tds.  Yes that's right, Cook and Shakir have the same number of receiving TDs the last 2 years.  

 

For all those who say it's the O Line that makes Cook good, why did Cook average 4.9 yards per carry last year and Davis (who had 100+ carries last season) averaged only 3.9 behind the same line?

 

The Bottom line is that we don't know what the Bills under Beane will do about investing in a RB because Cook is the first difference maker at the position we've had under Beane.

 

 

 

So you argue that we don't have difference makers ... and yet we've been a terrific offense year after year. Being a great offense is the goal of the offense, and we're achieving it.

 

Where's the problem there?

 

We were an excellent offense with Singletary before Cook. There's a lot of different ways to be excellent. 

 

I'm with Barley in that I think we do know what the Bills under Beane will do about investing in an RB if the RB (decision maker or not) insists on $15M AAV. That could be wrong, certainly, but it doesn't appear so. We'll see.

[Doc Brown]

5 hours ago, GASabresIUFan said:

For all those who say it's the O Line that makes Cook good, why did Cook average 4.9 yards per carry last year and Davis (who had 100+ carries last season) averaged only 3.9 behind the same line?

James Cook is obviously a way better running back than Ray Davis at this point in career.  In defense of Davis though he was often brought on in short yardage situation and when we were just trying to run out the clock late in games.  That's why he was third in the league into running into stacked boxes (8 men in the box).  He was also 4th in the NFL in missed tackles created per attempt so I do expect him to get better as Cook and Singletary made quite the jump in their 2nd season.  Rookie wall and everything.  The one game where Cook missed Davis went 20 carries for 97 yards so he's capable at least.

[FireChans]

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

You'd like to see some evidence that overpays at WR are equivalent?

 

I'd like to see some evidence that they aren't. And there really isn't such a thing, either way, since overpaying is based on opinion. You clearly think WRs are paid too much, so you see overpays everywhere at that position. Your perception isn't something that can be proved. It could maybe be somewhat supported with massive amounts of contract examination. But you'd still be saying that this guy is an overpay in many many cases where someone fair-minded could disagree.

 

"The NFL has changed a bit since [2019]," you say? Exactly correct. "A bit." The NFL changes every year. But a bit of inflation here and there and a re-shuffle in which positions are paid a bit more is NOT some kind of earth-shaking paradigm shift. It's what happens in football all the time. Pretending that 2019 was the stone ages and the Paleolithic era of six years ago shouldn't count is just nonsense. Beas and Brown are much the same type of mid-level contracts the Bills have mostly given receivers, frustrating those who want to see them bring in higher-paid guys. 

 

As Shaw pointed out, this appears to be what the Bills want to do. 

 

And their offense has been terrific, consistently.

 

Cooper indeed wasn't a free agent. Which has nothing to do with how much he was paid and which team acquired him. We got him. Cheap. Other teams didn't. We did. And you know it. You used Diggs as evidence for your side. He was also acquired by trade. And it was indeed worth every penny to take his salary on board. What, only trades that show what you want them to show count, but the ones that don't fit your narrative somehow don't count?

 

Sorry, I somehow had the idea they'd renegotiated Diggs right after the Vikings trade. Fact is, though, that acquiring his very expensive contract was a terrific move. The renegotiation (also not free agency, shouldn't count if only free agency is involved) in 2022 was a failure. But getting him in here in 2020 and paying that contract was a tremendous success.

 

For a tremendous offense.

Cooper being traded for at his existing salary, which was less than $1M instead of being a free agent signing had EVERYTHING to do with how much he was paid by the Bills.

 

I’m afraid you are missing the point.

[Mister Defense]

8 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

You'd like to see some evidence that overpays at WR are equivalent?

 

I'd like to see some evidence that they aren't. And there really isn't such a thing, either way, since overpaying is based on opinion. You clearly think WRs are paid too much, so you see overpays everywhere at that position. Your perception isn't something that can be proved. It could maybe be somewhat supported with massive amounts of contract examination. But you'd still be saying that this guy is an overpay in many many cases where someone fair-minded could disagree.

 

"The NFL has changed a bit since [2019]," you say? Exactly correct. "A bit." The NFL changes every year. But a bit of inflation here and there and a re-shuffle in which positions are paid a bit more is NOT some kind of earth-shaking paradigm shift. It's what happens in football all the time. Pretending that 2019 was the stone ages and the Paleolithic era of six years ago shouldn't count is just nonsense. Beas and Brown are much the same type of mid-level contracts the Bills have mostly given receivers, frustrating those who want to see them bring in higher-paid guys. 

 

As Shaw pointed out, this appears to be what the Bills want to do. 

 

And their offense has been terrific, consistently.

 

Cooper indeed wasn't a free agent. Which has nothing to do with how much he was paid and which team acquired him. We got him. Cheap. Other teams didn't. We did. And you know it. You used Diggs as evidence for your side. He was also acquired by trade. And it was indeed worth every penny to take his salary on board. What, only trades that show what you want them to show count, but the ones that don't fit your narrative somehow don't count?

 

Sorry, I somehow had the idea they'd renegotiated Diggs right after the Vikings trade. Fact is, though, that acquiring his very expensive contract was a terrific move. The renegotiation (also not free agency, shouldn't count if only free agency is involved) in 2022 was a failure. But getting him in here in 2020 and paying that contract was a tremendous success.

 

For a tremendous offense.

 

Great post, using facts and excellent reasoning here, along with very good writing.  So, no contest here.

 

The guy had said the same exact thing about running backs just a few months ago that he is now saying about wide receivers!  And with the same kind of shoot from the hip, facts be da*ned, bizarre reasoning to 'back' his ideas up.  Now, 'never mind', it's the wide receivers who should never be payed!

 

Your "for a tremendous offense" comment will likely send all of the rest of the bashers into another fit, of course.

 

Shoot, the Bills may have the best offense in NFL history this coming season, after having the best in the NFL last year. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Thurman#1]

3 hours ago, FireChans said:

Cooper being traded for at his existing salary, which was less than $1M instead of being a free agent signing had EVERYTHING to do with how much he was paid by the Bills.

 

I’m afraid you are missing the point.

 

Um, no.

 

Me:  "Cooper indeed wasn't a free agent. Which has nothing to do with how much he was paid and which team acquired him. We got him. Cheap. Other teams didn't. We did."

 

You:  "Cooper being traded for at his existing salary, which was less than $1M instead of being a free agent signing had EVERYTHING to do with how much he was paid by the Bills."

 

Yeah, as a careful reader will immediately note, that's you missing my point. I said him not being a free agent had nothing to do with how much he was paid. Trade or FA, you acquire a guy with a salary of less than $1M and that's all that matters to your argument, not that we had to trade something away to get him.

 

You misunderstand and argue that the salary he was paid affected ... what, um, the salary he was paid? Yeah, um, DUH!! Redundant and unresponsive much?

 

You were trying to legislate out trades, because they didn't fit your narrative. Not all trades by the way, just the ones you found inconvenient to your argument. We can apparently talk about Diggs, according to you, but not Cooper, because he's not convenient for the thrust of your argument.

 

So then I point out that your argument is about money, not about whether the Bills traded something away to acquire the contract. You skip right past that and pretend ... I guess your argument was that "his existing salary ... had EVERYTHING to do with how much he was paid by the Bills," apparently trying to assume that I didn't know that his salary equalled his salary? Yeah, I was pretty aware of that. I can't imagine anyone not being aware of it.

 

 

The Bills strategy since they got here has been pretty consistent. Go after WRs you don't have to pay massively for, not the massive splash types. Trades, FA, whatever, don't swing for the fences financially for WRs. And even more so with RBs.

 

Use TEs and RBs to try to fill in the pass game.

 

And again, they have had tremendous offensive success with this approach.

 

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said:

Trade or FA, you acquire a guy with a salary of less than $1M and that's all that matters to your argument, not that we had to trade something away to get him

He wouldn’t have gotten a salary of $1M in FA.

 

I didn’t mention you could or couldn’t talk about anyone.

 

Not sure what argument you’re trying to have.

 

2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

The Bills strategy since they got here has been pretty consistent. Go after WRs you don't have to pay massively for, not the massive splash types. Trades, FA, whatever, don't swing for the fences financially for WRs. And even more so with RBs

Except for Diggs who we did pay massively with his extension in 2022.

 

You can’t even get the basic facts straight to have whatever discussion you think you’re having.
 

 

[Mr. WEO]

On 6/13/2025 at 11:26 AM, FireChans said:

There was 1 NFL WR making what OBJ made in 2018. His name was OBJ.

 

You made an apples to oranges comparison to prove WR inflation wasn't real. You were wrong.  The highest paid WR in 2018 made 10% of the cap. The highest paid WR in 2025 made 14%. 

 

The top 5 WR's in 2018 by AAV made an average of 9% of the salary cap

 

The top 5 WR's in 2025 by AAV make an average of 12% of the salary cap.

That's the other issue with RB's. 

 

How many pretty good backs are on that list? 

 

It's hard to compete in a market flooded with supply. 

 

The cap has risen 56% over the time that top WR % went up 3%.

 

There is 1 WR making what Chase is making.  No other WR contact signed in 2025 was close to his AAV.  so we are comparing outliers. 

[FireChans]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

The cap has risen 56% over the time that top WR % went up 3%.

 

There is 1 WR making what Chase is making.  No other WR contact signed in 2025 was close to his AAV.  so we are comparing outliers. 

lol the top WR salary was a percentage of the cap. Now you are getting into apples and orangutans comparisons.

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, FireChans said:

lol the top WR salary was a percentage of the cap. Now you are getting into apples and orangutans comparisons.

 

who did Chase set the market for?  who else got that money?  

 

your whole premise is that the WR market is "actually insane" because the top 5 WR's are making a few points more of the cap than they were in 2018?

 

that's checking in at something less than insane for me.....

[BADOLBILZ]

11 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

Even the difference between a heavy man and a heavy zone covered scheme is not that much 

 

You're not talking 80% man 20% zone.. 20% zone 80% man 

 

Sean McDermott is one of the heaviest zone users in the NFL and we still play Man almost 40% of the time... And it jumps up significantly on third down 

 

No team in the NFL could survive playing 75% of zone or man coverage across the board all game any day.. when the game gets tighter Sean McDermott  starts calling tighter man

 

When it's third down and he needs a stop he's going cover one man

 

 

But do you need 1st round talent CB's to execute in an "80% zone" scheme?

Of course not.  

 

CB and S body types with baseline NFL quality traits are typically very easy to find relative to all other positions except *maybe* RB.

 

It's why starting Bills CB's like Taron Johnson, Benford, Dane Jackson, and Levi Wallace were day 3 picks or UDFA.

 

It's why there are people thinking Jordan Hancock or Dorian Strong could become starting players.

 

By contrast,  try finding boundary WR talent on day 3.  

 

 

[Thurman#1]

51 minutes ago, FireChans said:

He wouldn’t have gotten a salary of $1M in FA.

 

I didn’t mention you could or couldn’t talk about anyone.

 

Not sure what argument you’re trying to have.

 

Except for Diggs who we did pay massively with his extension in 2022.

 

You can’t even get the basic facts straight to have whatever discussion you think you’re having.
 

 

 

 

I did make two mistakes above, which I owned up to. 

 

You haven't successfully pointed out one since then, though.

 

Again, your argument is about money. How the Bills acquired the guy - whether they paid a draft pick for him - doesn't affect how much the Bills paid. They brought on board contracts they wanted. How they got those contracts is immaterial to arguments over money. How much money they had to pay, that's what mattered.

 

"He wouldn't have gotten a salary of $1M in FA," you say? I see, you've talked to his agent, then, and Cooper himself? I'm sure that must have been quite a talk, you should tell us all about it. The fact is that some FAs get paid far less than they deserve in various situations:  Feeling they can prove something in the short time with the new team, or the terms of the original contract mean that the player won't get any more total money with a new large contract than a new small one, for two.

 

The key to the Bills accepting Cooper's money situation wasn't that he was traded rather than being acquired in FA. It was how much money they could get him for. 

 

Your argument is a financial one, how much money the Bills should spend on certain positions. 

 

Again, we brought in Diggs in a trade. And it was a great move. Re-signing him proved to be a bad one. But spending the money on him in the first place was brilliant. You keep wanting to ignore the wildly productive part of the Diggs story while using the bad part as one of your main bricks. It doesn't work that way in fair arguments. He was here for four years, not one.

 

You're trying to finesse inconvenient facts away. You're arguing that those aren't part of your argument about money, because the McBeane contracts are a bit older or the Bills sent a draft pick to the other team, which means we can ignore that financial move and only talk about the stuff that confirms what you want to say.

 

We get it. But it's not a strong argument.

 

 

1 hour ago, Mister Defense said:

 

Great post, using facts and excellent reasoning here, along with very good writing.  So, no contest here.

 

The guy had said the same exact thing about running backs just a few months ago that he is now saying about wide receivers!  And with the same kind of shoot from the hip, facts be da*ned, bizarre reasoning to 'back' his ideas up.  Now, 'never mind', it's the wide receivers who should never be payed!

 

Your "for a tremendous offense" comment will likely send all of the rest of the bashers into another fit, of course.

 

Shoot, the Bills may have the best offense in NFL history this coming season, after having the best in the NFL last year. 

 

 

 

I know.

 

But let's not talk about our outstanding continuous offensive success. Let's talk instead about how cheapness is killing our offense and a lack of skill players at WR and RB is ... is, um ... is a clear failure for this brain trust.

 

Offensive success schmoffensive success.

Edited 14 minutes ago by Thurman#1