Thurman#1

I would not like to see that. Vrabel is a damn good coach.

In the end, it really does. If cash is actually paid to the player, there is no way to avoid it hitting the cap. And if the player is gone, all the pro-rated money that hasn't hit the cap gets accelerated (differently depending whether or not it's pre or post June 1st, but it's all got to be paid, every penny). Also, a bunch of Hurts' money hits sooner than the void year in real life. If you look at the bottom of the Spotrac page, in the section called "Contract Notes," you see there are a bunch of things that will hit the contract before those void years. For instance, the 2026 salary is $1.215M. But as of March 2025, $30.804M of the 2026 salary fully guarantees. So in March 2025, his 2026 salary goes up to $32M. Also, look at the "Potential Out." At the beginning of the 2028 season if they cut him they'll have paid him $208.3M. All of which will have to go against the cap, either in 2028 or maybe some will spill into 2029. It all has to be paid in the end. If it goes to the player, it has to hit the cap. How and when depends whether they still want him each year, whether they re-structure him, and so on. But it all has to be paid.

Yeah. I think you said, "we're not allowed to talk about it," and so he was going to talk about it. I could be wrong, though. Anyway, I thought before camp that Kincaid was going to be right up there with what Kelsay got last year. As camp passes and he gets more dominant, I'm thinking he'll maybe even do a bit better than that.

Yup. Precisely on target.

The Chiefs may have had two players finish in the top 32 in the NFL in receiving yards every season since Mahomes has been with the team. But as recently as ... oh, yeah, last year, when they won a Lombardi ... only one of those players was a WR, Rashee Rice. Oh, and I love the way you said "the top 32." What a coincidence you picked 32 instead of 30. Rashee Rice was #32, with 938 yards. Their second-best WR last year, Watson, finished at #95 in the league in receiving yards. #32 and #95 as the top two WRs on a Super Bowl winning team. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Throw in our TE and there's a decent chance we too have two players finish in the top 32 this year. Hell, Curtis Samuel finished at #33 in 2020, and that was with Teddy Bridgewater throwing to him, not Josh Allen. And there's an excellent chance that our top two WRs out-produce the Chiefs top two from last year. They only managed 1398 between the two of them, Rice and Watson. We could easily have our top two WRs total more than that.

95% is high. That would translate to already knowing 48 out of 51. They don't know with nearly that much precision. I mean, of course 75% to 85% they know, barring major surprises. But after that it's absolutely affected by camp and the pre-season. And IMO MVS is not a lock by any means. He would have been if performing up to expectations, but he hasn't. Somewhere between a 40% - 80% chance he stays, maybe, at a guess.

That's true, I didn't highlight that part. Or any of the other stuff he wrote that was irrelevant to my point or anything else you said that I was replying to. I got an idea, why don't you go back, and highlight all the other stuff that was irrelevant to our argument? Why stop at only a few irrelevant sentences? Does poinpoint placement sound like Josh Allen to me? Um, yeah. It absolutely does. Allen isn't as consistent as Burrow or Brady with it, but he's absolutely a guy who hits poinpoint passes multiple times every single game. By the way, STILL WAITING FOR THAT LINK!!! You're going to get back to us about that statement you attributed to Waldman, aren't you? Remember? When you said that Waldman said, ""that the quality of your top 2 receiving targets greatly dictates whether you have a chance of reaching a SB or not." I think we're all waiting for that. For all I know, he did say it I don't read everything he says. Yet strangely, you overlooked replying about that. Don't worry, I'm sure we're all willing to wait. You hang in there and keep looking. Don't worry, I won't let you forget. Oh, and never change, dude. I point out how you're consistently changing misrepresenting people's statements. And you jump right in and do it again to prove my point. Thanks for that. We can always chuckle at another example of this from you. You say, "The praise he gives Coleman is faint." So, for those keeping score, here is some of the "faint" praise he gives Coleman ... from the article Badol is referring to: "Coleman is on the cusp of the Franchise Tier: Immediate production and leadership anchor." "Coleman’s contested-catch ability—arguably the best in this class" "Coleman often earns 1-2 steps on cornerbacks within the first 12-15 yards of a route and he routinely stacks them to cut off their position for the remainder of the route." "his breaks are sharp and flat," "t’s an excellent ceiling." "Coleman has a terrific catch radius and stone-cold confidence about winning the ball between defenders, regardless of how many there are, how big they are, and where they are relative to him and the ball." "runs well after the catch." "What stands out the most about Coleman in this role is how efficiently he changes direction. He flips his hips like a veteran running back and can point the toe to open his hips in tight traffic, which helps him hug blocks, set up opponents into the block, and then bounce outside." "he earns a quick 1-2 steps back to the quarterback on timing routes" "Coleman could have a career similar to Anquan Boldin, Mike Williams, or maybe Brandon Marshall if his route skills carry over and find the right fit with a good quarterback." "Coleman dictates physicality from the release through the catch point." "Coleman has a good feel for pacing in his routes and this helps him tell efficient stories without a lot of wasted movement." "He has an efficient wipe that he’ll combine with a stick to work past defenders playing over him as he works up the seam. He also has an efficient shed in tight quarters to set up the fade." "He’ll use the wipe as a counter to a one-step stretch or double up with an arm-drum. He has a good swat-swim combination. He’ll also steal a release with a patient but a sudden double up with his inside foot after diving inside against off-coverage." And that's only from the first half of the article, there's a ton more. Yeah, I picked only positives. That's to refute your dumb point about "faint praise." Folks, here's the link: https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2024/07/30/keon-coleman-matt-waldmans-rsp-pre-nfl-draft-scouting-report/ Take a look for yourself at how "faint" his praise is. There are really only two reasons for someone to call that kind of wording "faint praise." The first is that he's an absolute moron. And clearly that's not you. Even your worst enemy wouldn't accuse you of that. The second, though, is that he's desperately trying to make a point and is willing to completely and consciously misrepresent what another man says. And frankly, that's you, all over. Again and again, even just in this thread, but really everywhere. What Waldman actually says is that his evaluation of Coleman requires "nuance and context." "Faint praise," is absolute nonsense. But it certainly is true that Waldman isn't only positive. There's nuance there His praise for Coleman is anything but faint. It's glowing. However, he doesn't have only praise for him. It's nuanced. But positive enough that his Player Comparison Spectrum for Coleman is this: "Anquan Boldin/Mike Williams - X - Tee Higgins." And his summary is, "Coleman is on the cusp of the Franchise Tier: Immediate production and leadership anchor." "Faint praise"? That's not just wrong, it's deliberately misleading about what Waldman actually says.

Oh, and another example of you mis-stating what Waldman says. And right in the same post. Waldman: "Because his breaks are sharp and flat, Coleman earns enough separation to develop into a high-volume intermediate target in the short and intermediate passing game if the quarterback is looking for him as the first option." Badol: "he also recognizes that this is a receiver who isn't likely to excel at getting separation and may need to be his team's 1st receiving option to excel because his windows may close too quickly to be a good option later." Typical!! Waldman says something quite specific about how he might be able to develop into a high-volume intermediate target specifically in short and intermediate passes. And you twist that into "may need to be his team's 1st receiving option to excel," with no mention that he's talking not about his whole game but very specifically about You may be one of the world's poorest paraphrasers. Waldman says he "earns enough separation to develop into ..." and you change that to negative phrasing (Golly, what a surprise you'd do that!! Whoda thunk it?), into "isn't likely to excel at getting separation and may need ..." Neither of which did Waldman actually say.

You can't go a minute without misquoting someone, can you? Where does this compulsion come from? It's weird. You consistently misquote me. And anyone you disagree with. And now Waldman as well. Where does Waldman say, and I quote you here, "that the quality of your top 2 receiving targets greatly dictates whether you have a chance of reaching a SB or not." I'll wait for a link. What Waldman actually says is that receivers can be important, that they make a difference, that they help QBs. The usual stuff. The stuff that is correct. He also says that a ton of other things are also important, also make a difference, also make a QB better and a team better. Doubtless he'll also have said, in your mind somewhere, how the Bills have no chance this year because they lost Stef Diggs and don't have a great top two at this point. Must've already ruled out the Bills, since in your mind he said that. "That the quality of your top 2 receiving target greatly dictates whether you have a chance of reaching a SB or not," in your words. Poor guy must have committed harakiri when the Chiefs won the Lombardi last year and their best two were Rice, a rookie #2 who managed 938 yards and ... well, who would you say was their 2nd best? Justin Watson with 460 yards? Skyy Moore with 244? Values-Scantling with 315? Yeah, boy, those top two WRs, whoever you want to say is 2nd, sure did "greatly dictate" that SB win. Wish we had a top two who could combine for stats like that. Poor Waldman. Anyway, I'll wait for that quote and the link.

Indeed. But at the same time, KEON COLEMAN's not as bad at finding space as many on here want to pretend. Matt Waldman (he's excellent, take a look at his work) did a thoughtful, insightful look at him pre-draft, a really deep dive, and he seems to have been proven right at camp. https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2024/07/30/keon-coleman-matt-waldmans-rsp-pre-nfl-draft-scouting-report/ --------------------------- "The Elevator Pitch: Coleman’s evaluation requires the reader to be open to more nuance and context than most of the top options on the board. It’s not about whether Coleman is good or not, but how good he can be based on his role and his surrounding talent in the passing game. "If the design of the RSP’s evaluations were to determine how likely a player would earn his best-case team fit, Coleman would have a lower grade because to unlock his complete game, he’ll need a quarterback with excellent anticipation and confidence throwing into tight windows. "Coleman’s contested-catch ability—arguably the best in this class—is only part of the reason why. Coleman is an effective route runner who has an effective press-release package, smart stem work, and sharp breaks. He earns separation on underneath routes when projecting to the standard of the pro game. However, this standard also includes anticipatory passers with pinpoint placement and there are teams that don’t have a starting quarterback with these qualities. "Despite his lackluster 40-time at the NFL Combine, he had one of the fastest M.P.H. marks in the gauntlet drill among receivers. This is a better approximation of the play speed seen on tape. Coleman often earns 1-2 steps on cornerbacks within the first 12-15 yards of a route and he routinely stacks them to cut off their position for the remainder of the route. "Because his breaks are sharp and flat, Coleman earns enough separation to develop into a high-volume intermediate target in the short and intermediate passing game if the quarterback is looking for him as the first option. If Coleman is consistently the second or third option on routes where quarterbacks can be 1-2 beats late to throw the ball and Coleman’s coverage is tight man-to-man, those windows of opportunity will not be as good. "Coleman’s contest-catch ability and physicality will compensate somewhat in this scenario but only if the quarterback possesses the confidence and accuracy to fit it to Coleman. Most don’t and this is why Coleman’s ranking has a boom-bust quality when it comes to him achieving his NFL ceiling. "Still, it’s an excellent ceiling. Coleman has a terrific catch radius and stone-cold confidence about winning the ball between defenders, regardless of how many there are, how big they are, and where they are relative to him and the ball. "Coleman also runs well after the catch. Many NFL fans who don’t watch football won’t know that Coleman returned 25 punts for 300 yards at FSU for a respectable 12 yards per return and a long gain of 72 yards. What stands out the most about Coleman in this role is how efficiently he changes direction. He flips his hips like a veteran running back and can point the toe to open his hips in tight traffic, which helps him hug blocks, set up opponents into the block, and then bounce outside. "He’s far more agile, technically sound, and versatile than he’s characterized, which is why I have been recently calling Coleman the LeGarrette Blount of this wide receiver class. Yes, newbies, Blount was a running back—I interviewed him at the Senior Bowl—but he was also considered a plodding athlete among those who possessed a less nuanced understanding of the different forms of speed. Blount was also a fine kick return specialist in New England in addition to his work as a lead runner. "I would love to see Coleman as a Steeler. He’s a high-effort player with skill as a blocker and would match well with Russell Wilson, whose 2023 season in Denver might have gone significantly better if Tim Patrick were healthy. Coleman is a plus-plus iteration of Patrick." -------------------------- This part of the evaluation, the Elevator Pitch, makes up maybe 20% of this write-up. Waldman very intelligently goes into a ton of detail. He talks a lot about his ability and knack for stacking guys and how his breaks are clean and sharp. And Josh Allen is a guy who possesses confidence and accuracy in getting the ball to his guys.

Ah, I'm a absolute eejit. The problem was that the Advanced NFL QB stats thing posted above suddenly stopped working for any QBs in 2017, and I looked around, tried to figure out why it wasn't working and spent zero brain power on thinking about Allen's 2017. My bad. 808, fair enough, ya got me. Thanks, Billl.

Yeah, by all means, you go, boy.

You could be right that it'll be low. Or not. Here's what history shows about Josh's IAY/A, though: 2017 -- can't find it 2018 -- 1st 11.0 2019 -- 6th 9.3 2020 -- 9th 8.5 2021 -- 7th 8.2 2022 -- 3rd 9.2 2023 -- 4th 8.7 The words "Josh Allen," "low" and "IAY/A" should probably not be used in a sentence together, or at least without the word "not." Josh loves to hold the ball and go long. His IAY/A is likely to yet again be in the top quarter of the league. That appears to be who he is and it's questionable whether his small variation in this stat is more due to receivers or other factors.

Agreed with the first two paragraphs, which is why I left them out. But I don't see anything much surprising or interesting there in that record. 5-0 against 4 - 7 teams? OK, so that means they beat the teams they obviously should beat. 0-6 against 1-4 seeds? This just looks like more of what we already knew ... they've got a Kansas City Chiefs problem. The first two of those losses were the 2017 loss against the Jags and the 2019 loss against the Texans. The Jags were not a good team. But the Bills were clearly worse, still working their way through the early stages of a rebuild. The Texans also weren't a very good team but the 2019 Bills just weren't very good yet either. The Bills didn't lose that game in spite of having Josh Allen. Allen was a significant reason they lost that game. He just wasn't as good as he was going to be very soon. Some great plays. Then some bad ones. The D underperformed in that game, but the offense only put up 19 points. They had an awful lot to do with that loss. And we just weren't a team that was competitive for more than maybe winning a playoff game anyway that year. After that, we had a Chiefs problem. Three of those four losses were to the Chiefs. Those were the four years we were legitimately good enough to compete for a title. In '20 we lost to the #1 seed, the Chiefs. In '21 we lost to the #2 seed, the Chiefs. In '22 we lost to the #3 seed, the Bengals (who then lost to the Chiefs). In '23 we lost to the #3 seed, the Chiefs, who then won the Lombardi. Legit, I think, to say we should have beaten the Bengals. But that team just looked like seeing Hamlin die on the field, seeing the permanent death of Knox's brother, the blizzard deaths, the mass shooter deaths and playing three home games in a row in 19 days including on that had been scheduled as a home game just took too much out of them overall. Fair enough if you still want to attack that, although IMO they just didn't seem to be have anything in the tank that game. But again, you want to blame that on an inability to beat good teams in the playoffs, it's an argument that can be made. I won't believe it, but it can be argued. But basically, it's a playing the Chiefs, and playing them early in the playoffs problem. If we play the 2017 Jags (#3) or the 2019 Texans (#4) with any of the teams we had in the last four years, we blow them off the field. Same with most of the non-Chiefs top four seeds in the AFC the last four years.

Yeah. And there's a lot more besides. I'm a big Matt Waldman fan and I think everyone should be. Here's Matt with his pre-draft evaluation on Keon. https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2024/07/30/keon-coleman-matt-waldmans-rsp-pre-nfl-draft-scouting-report/ An absolute ton of detail and at least so far it looks like he was right on target.

Nice!! Indeed!

The thin ice you're referring to? It's entirely in your mind.

Human nature, yes. Sensible, really not at all. Plenty of things that are part of human nature make relatively little sense and this is one of them. Kahnemann would have a lot to say about why this uproar makes no little sense, if he were a football fan. The Bills didn't want Worthy in that area of the draft. Knowing that, game theory says if the Bills can get the guy they did want and some other stuff besides, they maximized the value of their asset. There never was a real connection between the Bills and Worthy. Still isn't. I don't know how the two guys will work out. I kind of liked both of them but thought the Bills wouldn't pick Keon since they've been valuing separation so highly in their WR picks the past few years and Keon is better at getting separation than many have acknowledged, it's not his strongest suit. It's clear they like other things about him, the whole package, really. But I'm hopeful now that Keon will work out well and Worthy won't. Which is certainly possible, though up in the air at this point. But the connection between the Bills and Worthy is really minimal and it's based on people hoping that the Bills were interested in Worthy. But they weren't. It's the kind of thing that deserves to be talked about on draft day and then mostly forgotten after a few months unless brought up as a footnote.

I hope neither works out, I've got that much residual hate built up towards that team. But Maye was never going to be good the first year. Clearly needed a ton of development. He's going to take a lot of time if he ever becomes anything.

IMO I think the winning the Super Bowl part is pretty wild. But the division, no, not all that wild. I don't think it will happen. But let's be honest, every year there's a team or two that play much better than people thought they would and a team or two that drastically underachieve. Could the Jets be that team that overachieves? I don't feel like it's a hundred to one shot or anything. I don't think it will happen, but the outrage here seems an overreaction to me.

I get this is how people talk today. But it still misrepresents what's happening. It works really well to puff up the ego of whoever gets the contract. But the time scheme makes it nonsense. They say four years $220M. So you just divide $220 by four, right? Well, wrong. Because the $220 is correct, but it will in fact be paid over five years. $75M of it has already been paid. So those numbers are not the reality in either cash terms nor cap terms. In cash, he'll be receiving a total of $79M in 2024, $13M in 2025, $51M in 2026, $43M in 2027 and $45M in 2028. By comparison, his cap hit will be $20.7M in 2024, $29.7M in 2025, $36.1M in 2026, $42.4M in 2027 and $74M in 2028. So overall, he's not getting $220M for four years. He's getting in real terms, $224M in five years. (Still a hell of a lot of money, obviously, but not as much as it's spun to be.) Same with everyone else. Anyone getting an extension can, and these days do, misstate the value by ignoring the other year(s) he's signed for.

Again, doesn't really make sense. He wasn't saying that he knew at the time he shouldn't have been out there. He was saying that in hindsight he sees he shouldn't have been out there. And no, it shouldn't have been obvious that he wouldn't be better in the near future, which is what Von and the Bills were hoping. And it was a reasonable thing to hope for. Yeah, he wasn't good enough at that time, but it could have gotten better at any time. Hell, near the end of the season he was starting to flash. No consistency, but you saw flashes. And you hoped there would be more. There was not. No getting around that. But it was a very reasonable possibility. You may well be right that he never comes back to his pre-ACL level. But there's a reasonable possibility that he does, or at least gets close. It's getting towards two years on from the injury. We'll know soon enough. Final here season this year? Yeah, I think I'd agree with that. I'd put that at significantly over a 50% chance.

Yeah, because so many of these incredible pro athletes are wired to say things like, "Yeah, you know, I'll do my best, but probably won't actually be myself for another couple of years, if ever." You're right of course that he's consistently overestimated his ability to recover, but when he was younger he really did have an almost miraculous recovery or two. He's almost psychotically positive, but it kinda comes with the job description, doesn't it?

That's just dumb. In Young they were bringing in a successor. The Niners traded a 2nd and a 4th for Young, which would be flat out dumb for the Bills to do right now. Montana was 31 years old and QBs generally didn't last till 40 in those days. And in Young's first two years in SF, he completed 53.6% and 53.33% of his passes. We're not looking for a successor and shouldn't pay a 2nd and a 4th for a backup. The idea's dumb. Our backup is probably somewhere around the 5th to 10th best backup in the league. As for those in the top five, none would be favorites to make their team competitive in case of a season-ending injury to the top guy. Any team with a top ten QB that loses that guy for the season isn't likely to do anything, the exception being a situation like Hostetler and Foles where it's near the end of the season and there are so few games left that defenses don't have time to figure out how to defend the backup when he's in that scheme Trubisky's far from terrific. But he's very much what Foles was, and you only have to look at completion percentage, TD/INT ration, passer rating and on and on to see it. Better stats than Hostetler but that's as much the result of changes in the game as anything else. Hostetler is much the same kind of guy as Foles and Trubisky. OK, fair enough. Then there should be a ton of examples of this kind of thing happening. Your list? Don't worry, we'll wait. I'm sure you'll be able to come up with ten or twelve guys like this in the last twenty years or so just off the top of your head.

Well, that is certainly one guess. It could be right. Or wrong. Anyone with a clue knows that all we can do is guess, and one guess is pretty much as good as another. Which is how it works with the future.