Alphadawg7

Yeah agreed. And I too back then was like WTF, they are gonna let Brees walk for an unproven rookie? I thought they were crazy and I was pissed off when I thought he was going to Miami and thrilled when they stupidly passed on him. I don't remember the exact timing, but if memory serves I feel like they passed on Brees because of the shoulder injury but then instead brought in Culpepper. Maybe Culpepper was not the same year, but I just remember going how stupid that was to pass on Brees for an injury that he was recovered from and expected to have no on going issues with it. Glad Miami was stupid...Brees and Brady in our division would have been even worse than the nightmare we already had to endure with just Brady.

Yeah, its always surprised me too that the Brees vs Rivers decision in SD doesn't get more discussion. Honestly, I think it is more to do with the fact that Rivers still had a stellar individual career, so its not as sexy when there is still success to some degree as opposed to if Rivers had never developed into a legit starter and they had let Brees go. Its no secret the media loves stories where someone won big vs someone who lost big. And in the end, Brees didn't exactly have a ton more team success for the Saints outside the one SB given how for so many years the Saints were just not ever a complete team and always carried by Brees, especially defensively challenged most his time there. So again, the discrepancy I think was never widespread enough for the media to talk about it more, but its honestly a very interesting subject and I think has a shot at one day being a 30 for 30 special or something. But I really like this topic, and I will argue that Brees did more with less than Rivers. And had Brees not hurt his shoulder at the end of his last season there, I am not so sure the decision would have been as easy for SD. More importantly, I think if Brees stays in SD, I really do feel like he would have accomplished even more than he did for the Saints. I don't think he quite equals the same stats, I mean he has been in a high octane offense the whole time there under Payton, but he still would have put up gaudy stats I am sure and I think he may have one a couple of SB's at least with some of those rosters SD had over the years that choked in the playoffs. And yeah, I wanted Marvin Lewis back then too...badly actually. So I was with you on that.

While there is a half season and playoffs to still be played, I would argue he is already a top 8 QB right now. That being said, I don't know when Josh gets his extension, it may not even be next year, he is only on year 3 of his deal, but I think the amount of the extension will be a 2 part equation. First part, what did he do in the playoffs. A subpar playoff game and early exit isn't going to help his case on the contract size. Two, what kind of home town discount is he willing to include, if at all. This is what we know about Josh. He is one of the single most competitive players in the league and wants to win more than anything else. He truly loves Buffalo, its fan base, and playing with this team. He loves his brothers in that locker room. He is a small town guy and doesn't seem to prioritize money over all other things. Its always foolish to just assume a player will give a home town discount. Mahomes has a lot of the same traits above and seems to love playing in KC, yet he didn't afford them a home town discount by any means. However, Mahomes had also already won a SB, and that changes the mentality a bit too. If Josh and the Bills come up short of a SB trophy this year, that hunger is going to still be there, especially if they get even closer to it this year. I can see Josh wanting the team to have a little extra fire power in keeping as many guys as they can and some flexibility in adding some more quality pieces around him for them to all have an even greater shot at the trophy. Then there are just guys that when you really look at them you just feel like he is the kind of guy that prioritizes winning and staying where he loves to play over money regardless of what they have already accomplished. And Josh is the rare guy I think fits that description, so while no home town discount is assured by any means, I do feel its going to be a strong possibility that Beane and Allen will structure a deal that allows Allen to really cash in but still not be a cap killing contract that would make it harder for Beane to truly keep a championship TEAM on the field.

Good example to of this was the Chargers with Rivers or Brees, and they chose poorly. Brees has it. River's didnt. Imagine if Brees had stayed in SD instead of Rivers, I think he wins more than one SB. He had Tomlinson in his prime, there were some great defenses there, Antonio Gates, etc. I really do think Brees wins more than 1 had he remained in SD with some of those rosters. With the Saints, he has frequently been saddled with terrible defenses. There were some Chargers teams that really should have made the SB, but that team didn't have anyone who could close games. Brees closes games.

This makes me want to pull up all the posts and comments I made last year when I said this very thing would happen and people wanted to argue it. Makes me want to dig the posts up where I said Allen will have the better career as a QB than Lamar and would rather have him still even after he won MVP and people mocked that. Makes me want to bring up all the posts where I pointed out gimmick offenses like this never last and people argued he was the MVP. This is where I just causally insert: I told you so. Im no Lamar hater, I loved watching him play in college and enjoy watching him in the NFL. And he will still be a dangerous QB, but he is literally what Vick was before him. Took the league by fire quickly, and defenses just didn't have the answers initially. But once they found a way to limit the damage on the ground, the limitations as a passer began to hold the offense back. I still think Lamar will have a long and successful career, and he could even still win a SB, maybe even this year with how good the defense is. But anytime you have to run a gimmicky offense to mask the deficiencies of the offense, then you leave the door wide open for Defenses to understand how to exploit that. Not every defense they face will have the talent to do so, but once you get to the playoffs, defenses become a bigger factor in games and so far, they have been able to stall Lamar and the Ravens.

Surprised this is news to anyone. This was easily the most talked about story line during the AB to Bills saga. Its still never truly been confirmed by anyone credible that it was specifically AB she slept with. But its widely presumed to be him off of rumors. But again, this is old news...like the moment the story broke about AB close to being traded to the Bills broke, this was widely being discussed all over the board.

I didn’t say they would be easy though. I literally said it won’t be easy. I disputed they are heads and shoulders above the rest. That lost to Raiders and had several other narrow wins against lesser teams. Like I said, they are favorites still for the SB, but they aren’t unbeatable.

Yeah, I get that. As far as the $4 a month, I think its less about the $4 for ESPN+ and more about not enough content on their networks. I guess my only point is that I don't know if they will gain enough revenue off the pay wall to justify reducing and restricting that better content on their actual networks. Its substantially more expensive to run those live networks than a VOD service. So for me, I think their bigger issues is that not enough people are watching their networks anymore. So for that model to work, they would need to make up that revenue with ESPN+ subscriptions increases. That is really what I am more saying in terms of the model I think may be a mistake for them. I am like you, I don't really care about the $4 so much so I still have it even though I barely watch the ESPN+ stuff. But, I think where they are really losing money is on viewership on their cable/satellite networks, and by hiding some of their better content behind a pay wall, they are seeing a sharp decline in ratings on their more expensive cable/satellite channels.

I disagree with the Chiefs. They have looked quite vulnerable all year. Even with the Bills playing at their worst essentially, we were within one score late in the 4th. And keep in mind, we had injuries and Allen was playing hurt too. Still deserve to be the favorite of course, but just saying not seeing this "head and shoulders" above the rest status. I think we can beat the Chiefs. Not saying its easy, but I really think we can beat the Chiefs in the playoffs as long as our team is healthy. I think there are other teams that can upset the Chiefs in the playoffs too. Dont get me wrong, I would peg the Chiefs as certainly the leading favorite to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl, and honestly to win the SB. But, just saying they don't appear head and shoulders better and look beatable to me. Raiders beat them, Chargers in a rookies first start almost beat them, Panthers almost beat them, we were playing our worst football and hung in there until the very end still. I think us, Pitt, Balt, and Tenn will all play them tough, and they will obviously see some collection of those teams in the playoffs.

My bad, and yes bball should have triggered BASKETBALL in my mind as me and my friends love playing and watching basketball and always refer to it as bball. But for some reason I thought I saw the word "baseball" and I dont know why hahaha. I do get the demand for college basketball, just not sure its still enough to grow its subscriber base enough, especially given how much college basketball is still readily available outside of the paywall. Anyway, sorry for misreading that

Definitely disagree. Its completely clear he was in as far as I am concerned.

ESPN+ was a mistake IMO. Why every network is trying to build out their own paywall is beyond me. Its a turnoff to viewers, and sports content just isn't in demand enough due to wide spread availability to warrant a pay wall. Yes, they have 30 for 30, and excellent series. But that series already has so many episodes now, its not enough to really command a pay wall. The bulk of their exclusive stuff just isn't good enough to consume a lot of of it all the time and warrant the paywall. I pay for it in a bundle package with HULU, Disney+, and ESPN+. But honestly, the ONLY reason I do is because I was already paying for HULU and the upgrade was not that much and I wanted to get the Disney+ for the Mandalorian. Outside of Mandalorian and 30 for 30, I literally don't watch any other of the content behind the paywall. There is just WAY too much content on all the other platforms I have like Netflix, HULU, Prime, HBOMAX to feel compelled to search ESPN+ or Disney content (I have no kids) for something else to engage in. If I was ESPN, I wold focus on going back to just being the sports network, scale down the endless amounts of additional ESPN's, and take away the pay wall. Also, they need to get better sports shows, the Stephen A's and Skip Bayless type shows are mind numbingly stupid. Its literally the same show every day. First Take spend 2 hours on the air with an hour of it discussing the Cowboys almost every day of the year. These shows barely discuss real sports news, its just loud noise every morning. 30 for 30 should be a series on ESPN, not a VOD paywall for example. I mean once they tucked it and other original behind the paywall, all that was left on ESPN were Sportscenter replays and garbage shows like First Take with some less watched sports peppered in through the day.

Agreed as well

I definitely agree when you pay a tier 2 or tier 3 QB as if he is tier 1, you immediately diminish your chances of building a powerhouse. So many examples of teams overpaying guys early because they had to. Doesn't mean those teams cant get there or win a SB that fall into those situations, just means its going to be harder on those teams if they are not supported by a strong front office and coaching staff who can find talent in the draft and get the most of it on the field. Its also not always avoidable or even wrong to do that either, especially if that tier 2 or tier 3 QB is young and trending toward that tier 1 level. Some teams have no choice but to roll the dice. Take Goff for example, I personally felt it was too early to give him that size of a deal, there were a lot of question marks still about his toughness and ability under pressure (and quite frankly still are today). But they were kind of in a spot where they had to roll the dice based on his trend line and production. No team is going to let Goff walk that early in his career, so I get it. Just one of those spots you hope the progress continues. Sometimes this works out, other times this turns into Kap in SF, Tannehill in Miami, Carr in Oakland, etc where it doesn't and they underperform to that deal moving forward. That can really set a franchise back a while.

No disrespect, but this is wrong. The $20M mark is irrelevant in the first place, but I mean just going back 2 years to Tom Brady, he had a cap hit over $20M that SB victory, so its not accurate either to say no one over $20M has won it. The case you are really trying to make is a cap chocking contract by a top paid QB. But that is not accurate either. Steve Young has the record as his contract ate up 13.1% of his teams cap in 1994 when he led the Niners to the SB. Guys like Manning, Farve, etc all also won the SB while being among the highest, if not the highest, paid at their position too. I don't disagree with the point that winning a SB once you have already paid a QB as one of the top 3 paid players in the league makes winning a SB much harder moving forward due to the cap restrictions of that contract. Means your team needs to be excellent at drafting and replenishing talent through the draft on cheaper rookie deals because you wont be able to afford both buying them in FA and resigning your own. Chiefs for example are a team that will be a major contender, and likely favorite, this year and next couple. But at some point, if Chiefs dont consistently hit on their draft picks the next few years, Mahommes could become Aaron Rodgers where he always plays excellent himself but his team roster is always just missing just enough to keep them from getting more SB births and titles. Brady was making $22M in his last year they won the SB.

Ok I will do it

At this point, bring him in for a workout. What’s there to lose.

I was on here insisting to everyone for months before the draft that DK Metcalf was going to be insane and was a true #1 WR prospect and best WR prospect in the draft. Some agreed, most argued. I was on here on draft night pleading to take Metcalf every time another team passed, few agreed, most mocked his cone time. Once we traded up in the 2nd, I knew 100% it was for Cody Ford. No way they were going to trade up there if it wasn't for someone in the trenches IMO, and Cody was a first round graded prospect. But even then, I was pleading to trade back up into the 2nd again and take DK all the way until Seattle took him. Even fewer agreed and most mocked his cone time. Ok, done with my victory lap hahaha. That being said, I was never upset or even dissapointed with our draft on draft night either. Yes I badly wanted a WR because I knew that Zay Jones was utter trash and wouldn't last much longer here, nor should he. But they still got the DT they targeted, help for Josh on the OL, and promising RB and TE in the first 4 rounds. And as I sit here today, I have no concerns about our WR group either as Diggs is an elite WR himself with very good WR's around him like Brown and Cole too, not to mention Davis has a lot of upside (despite the gaff where he dropped a TD this weekend, I mean I have seen Hopkins and Julio both let easy TD passes go right through their hands while wide open, it happens). So, if I could go back, would I take Metcalf over Ford...absolutely. But I also am not sitting here like our future is in worse shape either, because ultimately we got the elite WR anyway, and one that is a freak in his own ways. No one plays bigger than his size better than Diggs, his footwork is at a freak level, and he is one of the best deep ball home run hitters himself in the NFL. I haven't given up on Ford, I still think he can be a good guard for us, although I have kind of given up hope he can be a true RT.

This. And this was a big issue I had with what Dak was asking for. If you put Rodgers, Wilson, or Mahomes on the cowboys last year, there is a 0% chance the Cowboys miss the playoffs. If you put any of those 3 guys on the Cowboys this year, there is 0% chance they win only 1 game (over the games Dak played and finished). But Dak was asking for money to be paid like them or more than some of them. So for me...the only ones I pay massive money to are the ones who have proven they can elevate their team above their rosters weaknesses. Seattle has a bad defense, yet they are succeeding. GB has a marginal defense, yet they are succeeding. I want to see a guy who can put that team on their back and will them to wins if I am going to invest a cap choking amount of money into them. Because I already know, that contract will be an anchor on the cap and make it harder to balance the roster out. So that QB better be able to elevate the team IMO. But...the flip side...I get the quandary that teams are in. Do you let a guy putting up high personal stats who is young or in there prime walk because they want to be paid with the elite. Its not easy to find another QB either. So teams too often cave and pay the demands. Washington and Cousins is one of the few times I can think of where they bit the bullet and didn't over pay a QB (Cousins). And IMO it was the right move. Now that doesn't mean it will always be the right move. Doesn't mean the right move is to let Dak walk. But Dallas compounded the issue with Dak when it grossly overpaid Cooper after shelling out a massive contract to Zeke already. Then after all that, they decided to draft a WR in the first to a team who had a very good WR group already. All of those decisions make the Dak one that much harder given what a shambles the rest of the roster is after paying for all that offense. So one could ask the question: Is it better to over pay a QB and stay on a path of middling team, 7 to 9 wins every year, and missing on premium draft pick slots? Where your future improving is mostly tied to finding gems in the draft at cheaper contracts. Or is it better to not over pay, even if it means having a down year or two, to then focus on finding a young talented QB on a rookie deal for 5 years at the top of the draft? If you miss on that QB it will further set your team back more years. So its a risk as well. I think you can make a case either way personally, but I think I would as a GM build through the draft rather than overpay and hurt the cap. Reasoning is simple...in either scenario, I better be able to draft well as a GM. So I think personally, if I am tying my future success to drafting well, I would rather do so with better draft slot and more cap flexibility. So tearing it down and taking a step back to be able to finally break through 2 to 3 years later sounds better than just being a middling team for 3 or 4 years that leads me to getting fired. Just my 2 cents.

Yes.

He’s on IR. Players on IR can’t be traded.

But wait, what kind of car does @DDCC drive? If you get that reference you’re a TSW OG 🤪

How can anyone compare the two situations? This is a pretty silly comparison and guess people forgot about Matt Cassel too. Patriots roster is not remotely close to the Bucs. Brady has the greatest collection of weapons of his career right now. Patriots offensive weapons is among the worst in the league right now. Patriots had several of their best players opt out on defense too for COVID and lost others as well. Bucs have an excellent run defense and pretty good overall defense. This is like asking why isn’t BB coaching the Jags to the Super Bowl right now because the Pats roster isn’t much better than the Jags. Meanwhile, Brady is the QB of an offensive juggernaught with a pretty good defense too. Same offense Winston threw for over 5000 yards in last year when it had less talent than it does this year. Sorry, but this is a ridiculous comparison and literally means nothing in the story of who was more important. They are both GOATS at what they do. Brady is just on a SB roster where Pats are more of a 5-7 win team roster.

I dont understand why people keep listing WR's as potential trade targets. Its the one area we are pretty rock solid at. And also Gilmore is not even remotely realistic. Not only do I seriously doubt Pats want to send him to the emerging best team in their own division, but the cap numbers are nothing Beane is going to ever consider. We can't afford to field 2 of the highest paid CB's in the league. But, I did answer YES in the poll if I think Beane will make a trade, and also YES if I would be disappointed if we don't. One, this team can and should compete this year. I can make an argument confidently that we are a player or two away from significantly addressing some of the glaring issues on the team. And that area is primarily 1TDT. Adding a space eater in the middle to replace the hole left by Star will make the most impact. That makes our LB's, DE's, and 3TDT's jobs so much easier. Its the rare case where a singular player can have a multitude of impact across the unit. I wont be pissed if no trades happen, but I do think that its a position that can fit in quickly into a unit, so of all years, this really makes sense for a midseason trade given the opportunity we have this year. So I would be a little disappointed if we don't given the solution to that problem is not currently on the roster. Wouldn't surprise me if we made a trade for a veteran TE or athletic TE, but I think its far more likely he explores some beef for the interior of the DL over anything else. Possibly a CB too not named Gilmore.

Matthew Stafford says hi