Thurman#1

All you've got to do to know that's not true is to look at his first year. Tying for 7th in receptions and being 10th in yards - as a rookie - and you know he's plenty good. How good exactly? Not enough info yet. In any case, saw this recommended in the Shout podcast and I took a look. https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/matthew-berry/news/matthew-berrys-25-most-interesting-things-he-heard-at-2025-nfl-combine The relevant part: "22. I talked with a Bills source who told me Dalton Kincaid’s lack of production last year was because he was a lot more injured than folks realized. 'He’s gonna be a sleeper next year, trust me,' I was told. What about Amari Cooper, I asked? A shrug. 'He might be done.' The implication to me being that Cooper’s days as an elite WR1 might be over, not that he would be leaving Buffalo. I still expect that if anyone would be the focal point of the Bills’ passing offense, it would have to be Khalil Shakir."

What you do, you go buy yourself a dictionary. Then you look up the phrase "second rate." Then, if you've got a clue you'll find that neither Brandon Beane nor Sean McDermott nor the entire Bills roster could be called second-rate, unless the person doing the calling had a mind that was second-rate.

It is indeed, it is a really close bit of mimicry of a bunch of rather sad fellows.

I'd be happy with this if Slayton is available at the right price. I'm now seeing it written that the relatively shallow draft pool of WRs might raise FA WR prices, and that Slayton might be a lot more expensive than people are projecting right now.

They ain't promising Metcalf to anybody.

The only thing "mindless" about a snap count argument is that it completely destroys your argument. Yes, the Bills have won 37 games with Cook. Because they're a good team. Duh. Cook has a part of that. But not as much of a part of it as McCaffrey and Barkley have for their teams wins. But the idea that the Bills won 37 games and the Niners only won 31 and that means Cook is better than McCaffrey? Dude, that's the kind of dumb idea you hear in the corridors of mental hospitals. You know who is much much much more germane to those numbers? The QBs of those two teams. Duh! Seriously, that's just stupid. Football is a team sport, and wins are team wins. Anyone pretending that wins are RB wins is showing he's nuts. By that standard, Saquon Barkley must suck. When in reality he's the best in the league. "Value to a team is production with his opportunities." Um, no. the idea's dumb. If that were true, a guy with five snaps who was pretty well in those five snaps would be someone we'd need to add. What you need is a guy who is on the field a lot. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a wonderful thing if a guy has a loud voice and a violent clap and stands on the bench and cheers loudly. Not as wonderful as a guy who the team values enough to get him out on the field a lot. "This colossal waste of time," you say? Yup. Because your argument is dumb. He's a very good player. But he's much more limited than those two. He isn't even the best on this team at pass blocking, which limits his usefulness. Again, he isn't even the best on the Bills at short yardage. And he appears to be maximized when appearing on the field on 42.8% of snaps. If you think teams are going to pay $15M AAV for an RB who while healthy has been in on 42.8% of snaps, I think you're having a pipe dream. Bad idea for the Bills to spend anywhere near that much on him. Hopefully we get him back at a much more reasonable price, probably somewhere around $10M. Which would still make him the #6 RB, behind McCaffrey, Jonathan Taylor, Saquon, Kamara and Josh Jacobs. That's about the right spot. Care to guess whether any of those five outside of McCaffrey are anywhere near as low in terms of snaps (chances to make a difference) as Cook?

Yikes!!! That's a hell of a frame to look at this through. Wow. He was fun to watch in his day.

Benford's ceiling is one of the top four or five CBs in the league. He can absolutely play CB1. The D played very well the first couple of games of the playoffs, and so did Benford. Against KC, he was coming back from a concussion during the Ravens game and then suffered another in-game injury. This meant he only played 18% of the snaps. And it was mostly after he left that the Chiefs offense took off. Elam was in for most of that game. Agreed, though, that a big DL move would be the biggest one-transaction step-up we could take. But Rasul or Rasul's replacement will be a major concern this season, and wouldn't be suprised to see them making a reasonably big move at safety, though even after the combine I doubt it will be in Round one.

Star did a very good job his first years here. Then COVID hit and he skipped the year, came back without getting vaccinated, started great in camp and for a game or two, but caught COVID, missed a lot of the season and after he came back, was never even close to the same. But his first year here our YPA in run defense dropped like a stone. And stayed down during his second year here. And soared again when he took the year off. 2017 24th (w/out Star) 2018 9th (w/ Star) 2019 13th (w/ Star) 2020 26th (Star opts out because of COVID) He was never much of a pass rusher, but he was a very good space eater for those first couple of years.

Yup, Garrett. Trey Hendrickson after that, probably. Third, maybe Crosby. No thanks to the expensive WRs. Bring us in a #2.

I see. So you're saying that availability is a super power and very important. But that playing a lot is a bad thing because it might lead to injury. Man, I've heard some dumb arguments, but that's right up there. Availability is important because it lets you play a lot. Not because you get to spend more time on the bench watching the games than the guys who are back at TBD in the rehab facilities. And no, I didn't neglect to mention games. You'd already mentioned it. I pointed out that snaps are what is important. Duh. What matters is how many plays you are on the field. You can only make a difference on the field. From the bench, you don't make a difference. Unless you feel that Cook's cheering and clapping are so energetic and encouraging that they're a weapon in themselves? Do you think a guy on the bench makes an impact like the guy on the field? On the plays when Cook is healthy but not good enough to be on the field ahead of Ty Johnson or Ray Davis, he does the team exactly as much good on that snap as does the long snapper sitting next to him. Cook is more explosive than any other RB we have. But on snaps when the RB might need to pass block as a third-down back or try to smash his way in short yardage, he gets pulled and gets a chance to try out his cheering skills. But Barkley and McCaffrey stay on the field because it's within their skill sets. Barkley's total snaps in his first three years: 1647 McCaffrey's total snaps in his first three years: 2751 Cook's total snaps in his first three years: 1388 Barkley's total snaps in the last three years: 2374 McCaffrey's total snaps in the last three years: 1756 Cook's total snaps in the last three years: 1388 Barkley's average snaps per year for his whole career: 647.7 McCaffrey's average snaps per year for his whole career: 618.75 Cook's average snaps per year for his whole career: 462.6 You want a guy who will be available, both in terms of health and in terms of being the best guy on the team to be out there in all situations, you take Barkley and McCaffrey over Cook. It's that simple. McCaffrey and Barkley have simply been out there more often. And again, I like Cook. A lot. But does he rank up there with the highest paid guys in the league? You are the one who started talking about how important availability is. Cook hasn't been available in terms of being out on the field as those other two. That's why he won't get their money, in my opinion, and why the Bills shouldn't pay him that much, again in my opinion. I want football players to be confident as hell. I think it's fine that he wants that kind of money and that he asks for it. But that doesn't mean the Bills should give him what he asks for. Or at least not unless he starts getting on the field and producing the way the big boys do. At 190, I don't think it likely he'll ever be a guy who gets a ton of snaps the way that McCaffrey does at 210 or Barkley at 232. Still a guy you want on your team, though, all being equal. But things aren't equal. Some guys get paid more. Some less. Some too much, and that's what you want to stay away from.

Yes, I do realize that Allen got sacked 14 times this season. Many thanks are due to the offensive line and to Allen's frequent quick trigger throws. Cook however is NOT a good pass blocker, and therefore is not often called to help Allen out in that way.. Hell of a runner. You have to give credit where credit is due. But equally, you have to point out problems where problems exist. And this is a problem. How do Saquon and McCaffrey stack up in availability to Cook? Good question, I'll look into it right here. The snap counts tell the story. Saquon had 801 snaps this year. That's an awful lot of availability. Cook had 485. Hmmmm ... In his Bills career, Cook has been in on 269, 634 and 485 snaps. Now, that's not bad, not bad at all. But it doesn't begin to compare to Barkley's 856, 717 and 801 the past three years. But what about McCaffrey, I hear you asking? Funny you should ask. Cook has averaged 462.6 carries per season in his three seasons. McCaffrey, though, was injured for a lot of the season this year, he didn't play a lot, and that's the reason he has only averaged 585.3 snaps per year over the last three years. So McCaffrey has only averaged more than 120 MORE snaps per year than Cook over those last three seasons. There's more than one kind of availability. One kind is health. The other is to have the skills (such as pass blocking) that your team will feel comfortable that they can put you on the field in as many situations as possible. Like third down for instance. And short yardage. We'll see. But my guess is he's not going to see $15M from anybody, and that the Bills offer to him will not be much beyond eight figures per year. I like the guy a lot, but he's not the whole package, and if he demands to be paid like he is, the Bills shouldn't oblige.

Yup. Dawkins, Spencer Brown, Josh. Plenty more over the years. Some evidence goes the other way too. You simply can't predict injuries in football most of the time. Some guys are injury prone, till they're not. Others are wildly healthy till they're not. Others continue the trends they've established. Continuing the trend is the best bet, but as guys get older bodies change and healthy trends become more likely to change. Overall, I'll take betting on a guy you already have more info on than anyone else does. As you say, it's risk-reward, because there is no perfect strategy. Guys will get injured no matter how they're brought in. They'll slack off after the second contract whether it's with their first or second teams. But you've got a better chance if you know them as people, and how they fit in your system and with your roster. But all you can do is do your best to increase your odds, to use your competitive advantages, which do include knowing the player. But guys change. We now know that's Diggs' M.O. is to be a great teammate for two or three years but after that ... well. He is such a good teammate early that he fooled both Minny and the Bills into extensions. But both extensions were worked out poorly for the teams. Sometimes, those kinds of things happen. No strategy is perfect. The Bills have done this again and again. I think it's been good overall, but there are certainly some bad results too.

Maybe we get Trey Hendrickson, then.

So I take it you think that QBs only need blocking on 3rd down? Not being able to pass block means both you and the team are more easily predictable when you are on the field. What's the fixation, you ask, when Johnson can block on 3rd down passing scenarios? One reason for this fixation is it results in more snaps where the RBs who collect the league's highest paychecks are in there threatening the defense while Cook is not available. It's part of the reason he gets so very many fewer snaps than the McCaffreys and Barkleys and Jonathan Taylors get. Here's what Christian McCaffrey thinks about pass blocking: "When 49ers fans think of Christian McCaffrey's incredible on-field abilities, they likely imagine the star running back with the football in his hands. But in McCaffrey's opinion, one of the most underappreciated aspects of his game actually helps quarterback Brock Purdy get the ball to other players rather than himself. " 'I feel like for every running back, the first think you hear about when you go into the first meeting room, if you have a new coach, whatever it is, they show pass protection, and that's widely known throughout every coach I've ever had,' McCaffrey recently said on the "Let's Go!" podcast, when former NFL quarterback Tom Brady asked about the most "underrated" part of the 49ers star's game. " 'If you can't pass protect, you're not going to play.' "Pass protection certainly is one of a running back's less glamorous roles, but McCaffrey told Brady he takes pride in making life easier on Purdy -- even though it means he won't get the ball. It's something 49ers coach Kyle Shanahan emphasizes, too, and San Francisco's elite group of offensive weapons takes turns impacting plays for each other's benefit. " 'I think that's why these individual awards [like NFL MVP], not that they don't matter, but they really don't matter to me, and it's because you have so many guys who are working together to accomplish a goal,' McCaffrey continued. 'And whoever ends up getting the statistics in that game just happens to get the statistics in that game.' ... " 'My [running backs] coach, Bobby Turner, is always like, "It's a 7-second fist fight when you're pass protecting." They might be bigger than you and they might have a full head of steam, but you have to find a way to not get your quarterback touched so that all the guys, all the receivers like Jauan [Jennings] and BA [Brandon Aiyuk] and Deebo [Samuel] and George [Kittle], who are blocking for you all the time, that's your chance to reward them with a pass so that they can go and get some of their shine.' "That selfless attitude is a huge reason for the 49ers' success. Their current status as the NFC's No. 1 playoff seed certainly would have been more difficult to attain without everybody doing their part -- even if it means they lose out on their own accolades. "And even though McCaffrey is smaller than most of the defenders he goes against in pass protection, it's clear the running back doesn't back down and is confident in what he provides as a blocker." https://www.nbcsportsbayarea.com/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/christian-mccaffrey-underrated-pass-protection/1683113/

No, he's not going by what the Giants paid Barkley after the injury. The 3-year $37M contract he's referring to is what the Eagles gave Barkley in 2024, after he'd showed the injury was way the hell behind him. As for opinions, I can't speak for him, but yeah, I totally think he shouldn't get what Taylor or McCaffrey signed for. Certainly not till he gets closer to them in carries, snaps and production. And both of them are also better pass blockers than he is. I'm betting he doesn't get $15M from anybody. And that if he gets, say $13M it won't be from the Bills. He's good, really good, but no, not worth what he's asking for. I don't mind Cook asking for what he wants. Nothing wrong with it. I don't want the Bills to pay it, though.

Yes. Same is true if we bring in somebody as an FA. Plenty of FAs don't work out. Same with trades. Or for that matter, paying a guy and keeping him. Let's not pretend that other ways are way better than the draft. Thing that makes the draft better is the rookie contracts and that the more picks you have the better your chance for getting a few very good ones.

First, "Full speed ahead" is a boat thing, not a train thing. Second, the offense was terrific this year. The defense not so much. Sure, get some improvement at WR. But as a higher priority than DL, CB and DE? Nah.

IMO they don't keep him unless he cuts us a major discount, which he could easily be willing to do. Pre and post June 1st end up costing the same amount, though more gets kicked down the road if they wait, which they don't always want to do. Look at them taking all of Diggs' dead money against last year's cap. Cutting Von would save only $2M, and it would leave us with $15M in dead cap whether they want to take all of that this year or spread it over two. If they can work out a discount instead it's likely quite a bit better for both sides. Unless he's completely washed, in which case you might as well cut him now. That doesn't appear to be the case, though, but he's also not even the Von from his first year here in Buffalo before the injury. Still probably one of our two best pass rushers, not that that's saying a whole lot.

Doubt he's going to be vet minimum, but also won't be a top 40 or 50 EDGE in AAV probably. Could well be a rotational guy. They'll need to take a look at last year's film and see if he's fallen off and what he still appears to be capable of doing.

I hear you, but I wouldn't go that far. Plenty of the time when we hear they are in on a guy if they don't get him it's likely because someone else was willing to pay a bit more. But yeah, sometimes it's smoke. Other times it's the agent but he's being honest, the Bills did contact him but they couldn't find common ground. And there've been plenty of times when we hear about it and then it happens. We heard about David Edwards rumors before it happened. And if I remember correctly Trent Sherfield as well. And Kyle Allen. Again, you're right in that we also hear every year about interest when guys then sign elsewhere. But that doesn't prove we didn't have interest. Maybe it's just we weren't willing to pay as much as the next organization.

On what you're saying there about Garrett, I think it's a lot more likely than you're assuming. Not that it'll happen, it could clearly go either way. But what Cleveland wants for him is kinda beside the point unless they're willing to keep him on the roster when he's made it clear he'll be willing to make himself annoying. Garrett has a no-trade clause, meaning he'll be able to say no to any trade the Browns make if he doesn't like it. He'll probably only be willing to accept - what??? - six to maybe 10 teams, and many of those might not be in a great position to be in the running. The Browns will have to take the best offer they can get from a team Garrett likes, and he can be as choosy as he likes. The Browns won't be in a position to get what they ask for. But yeah, he'll want an adjustment to his contract. Might be willing to wait a year, though, in the right circumstances. I don't know whether the Bills will want to do this, or whether they'll find the prices acceptable. But I think it's not wildly unlikely if they're genuinely interested in taking a shot on him at his age.

Yeah, I think it's fair to say that $15M is out of whack. Yeah, if you compare him to WRs, he looks cheap, but that's only because it's a fault comparison when you put an RB against a WR. WRs are worth more. Compare a WR's yards per target to any RB's yards per touch. It's not close. Cook put up 1267 yards, but it took him 258 runs and 38 targets to do that. Any of the WRs who got more yards need 258 plus 38 targets to do it? Compare RBs to RBs. He can't pass block all that well, which means they want to replace him in most third down situations. That hurts this offense. I'd like to keep him. But not if it requires them to put him in the top two RBs in AAV. They also made it clear that Keon was playing the last half of the season with wrist problems, which may well have been a broken wrist, though it hasn't been confirmed. There was absolutely a major fall-off after that injury. He lost contested catches at a much higher rate. And contested catches is one of the main things they wanted him for, particularly as a rookie.

Again, this simply isn't true. If you want to argue that it is true, you'd have to say that it's equally true of the Chiefs. The defense has been terrific in the playoffs ... except against the Chiefs. That's the way it goes sometimes when you're up against sensational offenses. Proof? Against one particular offense that they've played four times in the playoffs the Chiefs D has been pretty crappy. Allowed more than 30 points a game against that one offense they saw four times ... the Allen-led Bills, of course. I guess that means the Chiefs D has only had one side of the ball play at or above expectations in their worst games in the playoffs too. Damn, this is what I should have said.

So your evidence that they weren't good enough, to win it is ... that other games went differently? That you think that the Bills only have Allen though that's obviously just wrong, we've had had All-Pros on this team within the last couple of years, and anyone who thinks that this o-line wasn't sensational and a huge reason for the offense's great showing is simply not seeing what's on the screen in front of them. You got nothing. That's not your fault, there is nothing to have. The Eagles did win easily. A crap-ton of that appears to have been that Mahomes just had a crappy day, even when he wasn't under pressure, even early in the game before they'd shown they could get to him. The Eagles had their best game of the year and the Chiefs had their worst. Fact is that the Eagles beat the Chiefs. Know who else did this year? The Bills beat the Chiefs too this year. The Ravens beat us 35-10 this year. Does that mean they're a better team? Oh, wait we beat them in the playoffs. This stuff happens. It doesn't prove anything but who's better on the day. The Bills aren't a team of wussies. If you think they are, I'm sure there's a lot of room left on the Eagles bandwagon. Yeah, it's frustrating as hell. But we were good enough to win. We didn't do it. And yeah, I'm sure you, I and all of us want to see it happen next year.