Thurman#1

Mmmm. No. In his last 18 starts he had 9 sacks. Which isn't bad at all. But not 14. The other 5 sacks came in games he did not start. So if you want to talk about the 14 sacks, they came in 28 games. Both of those come out at 1 sack every 2 games, which would be 8.5 sacks if he plays all 17 games. How would we feel, if he also pressures at a commensurate rate? I wouldn't mind, but I wouldn't be thrilled. If we managed 4 playoff games, that would come to 2 sacks, which would not thrill me. Of course, there's more to it than sacks, lots more.

I don't think anyone can argue with his career numbers. When healthy and young the guy was an absolute monster. The question is recent production and most particularly future production. Hope it turns out well. It might.

On Shout they said those two were both were offering him around $8M. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2bsNFv6Epc Around minute 19. If true, that's how.

Personally, I think you really can fault him for trying. He's supposed to do more than try. He's supposed to try intelligently. I don't like this. It could be good, and I'm praying that I'm wrong. That much time injured, and we spend $12M? Too much for me. I haven't seen the doctor's reports, and presumably the Bills have. So, maybe he'll be terrific. Jeez, I hope so. But I hear people saying they don't lose anything if it doesn't work out, and to say that you have to think that $12M is nothing. And to me, it's a lot. It's good that it's a one-year deal, that does lower the risk, but $12M is not nothing. It's $12M you can't spend on someone else.

Hell yeah he is. The top nine CB contracts, ranked on AAV, are already $20M or higher. He already fits as a top nine guy. And the number at $20M or up will be a lot higher very soon. If they don't sign him, they won't have a guy on either side who you'd want as your #1 on either side. I don't see any rush, but they should extend him sometime this year if it's at all reasonable / possible. Note: injury is a concern. They should - obviously - listen to their doctors before making any moves like this.

This would be a good point if the only money left was this money. But that ain't so. They could still sign Cook or Benford, maybe even both, having already signed Hoecht and Palmer. Hell, having signed these two, Benford and Cook WILL be on the roster in 2025. It just isn't a one-or-the other decision. Not even close. Want Cook or Benford or both? Fine. The Hoecht and Palmer signings don't affect that. Either way.

I don't understand the Irish part of this, but I'm still feeling very good about this even though I never expected anything else to happen.

Wow, hadn't noticed that at all. Love it.

We get it. Folks wanted a guy who was already a #1, and hopefully a true #1 like Metcalf. Those guys are too expensive for Beane's plan. And many will say, "Well, then it's a bad plan, we need a #1." But we don't. We were a terrific offense last year. Terrific, with the receivers we had. But pretty much an average defense. That's where we need most of the work. Palmer is an upgrade, with the kind of ability to get deep that we don't have now, and the ability to get separation that we don't have enough of. He's a good move. And we were never going to spend megabucks on a receiver this year. Too many needs on defense, particularly the need to develop a serious pass rush.

Haven't the slightest doubt that Cook's agents will have your exact same POV on this matter. But the teams will say, "did you run for 2000 yards? No? Fair enough, but somewhere close, right? No? Well, then why should I give you anything close? Yeah he got production at a historic level. You very much did not." If the contract you suggest here is what Cook demands, my guess is he'll have to find another team to give it to him, and it won't be as easy for him as he thinks. If that historic Barkley contract did change things, my guess is it might possibly change Cook's possibilities from around $10M to around, maybe, $12M. Cook doesn't compare to Barkley, he just doesn't. Again, the only guys above about $12M are workhorse backs. Cook is not that guy. He's a guy you need to supplement with a 3rd down back and a short yardage guy.

You say that Cook wouldn't accept the 12 million a year contract here, "not after Barkley is making 20+ a year now. Not how it works in the NFL," and I think you're correct right up till the last few words. Why would Cook settle for only 60% of what Barkley is getting? Well, Barkley had 2283 yards from scrimmage this year and Cook had 1267. So, 55.5%. Barkley had 801 snaps and Cook had 485. So Cook had 60.4% of the snaps Barkley had. Sorry, man, this is exactly how it works in the NFL and the world. You get about 60% of the snaps and about 55% of the production and you get about 60% of the money per year? That's exactly how things work. Barkley is a workhorse back. Cook is a very fine back, but he is not a workhorse. Someone might pay more, but compared to Barkley, that $12M is not at all unreasonable for Cook. When you look at the three highest paid RBs in AAV, the guys more than a fraction above $12M, they are all workhorses.

They should extend both of them - - if the terms are reasonable. It begins to look like Cook won't settle for reasonable terms. Which is his right. But no, we shouldn't extend him at $15M AAV, or close. No huge rush, but if there's mutuality soon, that would be great.

Spotrac estimated him at $25M. https://www.spotrac.com/news/_/id/2652/nfl-contract-extension-candidates This isn't an overpay. It's a risk. They all are, but this is maybe a bit more than most. My guess is that if they put a few more dangerous guys on the other end at DE and in the middle, Rousseau suddenly "improves."

Jeez, this is amazing. Three core guys to be here a long time, all of them at surprisingly reasonable costs as we bring them in early. Really really hoping that making the finances clearer in this way allows them to bring back Benford as well. What this does financially is nicely eliminate some unknown and clear up the whole situation. I am loving this.

First, take another look. That's now TWO pure mistakes you've made, within like a page. I didn't insult you. I insulted your opinion. And just to repeat, the reason that I called your opinion dumb, is that it's dumb. So, when you say, referring to my post, "they go to personal insults," you're wrong. And when you say, "they can't just talk about the subject, wrong again. I guess being wrong so consistently could be said to apply to the quality of the posters, possibly. But that would be you saying that, not me. And yet again, you are seriously mis-using the word second-rate. Again, if you check the dictionary, you might possibly at the very least change the way you expressed yourself there. Because, again, saying that the Bills GM, the Bills coach, and the Bills roster are "second-rate" is just dumbage. See what I did there, yet again? I insulted an opinion.

Again, buy yourself a dictionary. You are completely misusing the phrase "second-rate." It doesn't mean what you apparently think it does. Calling the Bills coach, GM or roster second-rate is just pure dumbage. Says a ton more about you than it does about the Bills. Claiming that it's ridiculous to call it all excellent, as you did in another post here? Much more reasonable. Worth having a discussion about. Calling it all second-rate, though? Just dumb.

More trolling? *snore*

I don't see any particular rush. The order doesn't matter much, IMO. I'd love to see them talking but if they think they can get a better deal in a few months when the pressure is a bit higher, it's alright with me. Certainly I'd like to see them extend Benford, though. My guess it's coming whether or not he's next. Sign Cook for an extension? Sure, that'd be great. Sign Cook for an extension for the price he's asking? No, no thanks. It all depends on the contract language of course, but $15M AAV for Cook does not look good. Or likely. But if that was just an opening shot, by all means bring him back.

A good reminder. Well worth hearing again. And again and again.

No thanks. Losing a first for the right to pay a giant salary? No, thanks. Metcalf is an absolutely excellent player. But this level of opportunity cost? Hell, no. If bringing him in takes away the opportunity to bring in probably two or even three good defensive guys, which is where our real needs are, I'd sadly pass him by.

Good move!!! I like it. It does have an injury risk, but it's not wildly high, and the guarantee is not low but not tremendously high. If he stays mostly healthy this will come to be seen as a very good move.

Nah. When what you get from the horses mouth lines up with what makes sense ... it's probably simply because it's right despite some people wanting to believe in a conspiracy for which there's zero evidence.

Yeah, people with distorted views do find humor in stuff that's not actually funny. People who you go into their barn and you see it's filled with torches and pitchforks and "McDermott is the monster," signs? They come across an observatory and perceive a church? Those guys? Yeah, guys like that do indeed tend to have warped senses of humor. But we shouldn't hold it against them. Kinda cute, really.

I'd love that deal for Hendrickson. But if I were the Bengals I wouldn't do it. Of course, the Bengals do stuff that seems to hurt them all the time. So, who knows.

Big respect out to Mitch. He was effective and fun to watch, and from all reports a really good person. Best of luck to him in retirement. Oh, and being one of the few OL players doesn't make you seem a lot better. It makes your job a lot harder. Give me Wood at #2, though I don't think Morse was far behind.