Mr. WEO

that goes without saying.

Davis doesn't throw the passes...and it's hard to throw an INT from 2.9 yards from the WR--Shakir was a dump off/checkdown receiver who's YPC cratered this past season. 1600 yards, 7 CDs over 3 years. 54% of catches for 1st downs. In 2021, Diggs had 6 of Josh's 15 INTs (Davis 2). Davis had 3000 yards and 27 TDs in 4 seasons with the Bills. Only 3 drops his last year in Buffalo (compare to $20 million King of Drops Amari Cooper) and zero on 42 targets in nJax. In Buffalo, 77% of his catches were for 1st downs, another 17% were TDs--an insane yield. There's no real comparison regarding these receivers' productivity in Buffalo. Getting rid of Davis to then pay a WR3 the same money wasn't a value proposition. Those are simple facts, not opinion...

The point is that Barkley was willing to take under 13 million a year to sign with Philly. He had a top 3 year all time and they decided to reward him for that alone with the new contract. Cook is a top 10 RB, no doubt. I just don't think Barkley's very unique situation resets the market for all backs. Had the Eagles signed him for 20 million to come to the Eagles last year, then sure, that would have reset the market. Davis had the second best year of his career last season--it wasn't "a bad year". He's getting same as Shakir now is getting, and he was far more productive for the Bills. If the Bills resign Cook at 15 mil, then the market was reset. If they don't they they don't believe it was.

Babich ran the worst D in 4 years. Maybe Garrett brings it back to top 5? So what? Another Mario Williams move. I would still take the TDs....

He's a good back for sure--I haven't said otherwise. If the Eagles didn't decide to reward Barkley with a new contract right after he signed his previous one, no one here would be saying Cook should get 15 million. The Eagles gave Barkley a thank you note. They didn't have to, they just felt like it. The problem with that argument is that Josh is the best QB in the NFL. Cook is a decent /good back. that's a problem of their own making.

I don’t think extreme outliers reset the market. They signed him a year ago for under 13 million per. They just rewarded him for a crazy year. But it’s just that—a reward. They didn’t reset the market when they signed him. What would the Bills be rewarding Cook for?

Barkley had a once in a generation season. It was crazy to bump him to 20 million after just signing him for less. That being said, there are 2 guys making over 14 million: him and McCaffrey. On a terrible team, Barkley had 3 seasons over 1000. With the best O-line in the NFL, he double that in Philly. Cook cracked 1000 behind a very good O-line in Buff. The Eagles hardly bothered passing this year, the Offense ran through Barkley. The Bills don't run that Offense so Cook has less value here. Let him ask someone else to make him the 3rd highest paid RB in the NFL.

Frazier was walked to the recliner. 4th OC, 2nd DC (3rd, if you include McD himself) and 4th STC.

Barkley in no way reset the market for Cook. They are nothing alike.

signing another would be a Billsy move

He's perfect!!

People are born into the zip codes their parents chose to have them in. Pro football players are not miners (although they certainly could learn to be if they so chose). They also aren't overseas sneaker sweat shop prisoners. If you eliminated all industries that underpaid their workers, there would be no goods and products to buy, no? Companies will always seek to pay there employees as little as the market will allow. Which countries were ruined with inaccurately labeled NFL surplus donated shirts?

fans on TSW aren't the ones hiring...and then firing all those coordinators.

Culture? "sideline antics" on a previous team have never bothered Beane much before.

As an American, I am unfamiliar with this company and what they do.

likely all of them. How many NFL players have a college degree? If every UFL player is there by choice for their career, doesn't that mean they all agreed to the compensation when they joined? Why shouldn't they be allowed to make that choice. Plenty of people work in actually dangerous jobs for less (loggers death rate on the job is 1 per 1000), yet they may not have health insurance--and they certainly don't have agents or nutritionists. Should, say, logging not exist because of the poor pay and real danger? How about roofing? Mining? These guys should thank their lucky stars for someone agreeing to pay them to play a kids game. Their alternative is to get a real job--clearly they would rather not.

the league has no money to pay more than that. they should put their college degrees to work for real money, no?

Strange move for a guy they just signed. Where was he going?

I believe it's just the QBs who are threatening to not play. Who is exploiting them? They can chose not to play. No one else is willing to pay them to play football. The NFLPA has nothing to do with the UFL.

I believe that's what they get---the best ones who still want to play for money anyway. No one is going into the UFL or any of the phones leagues that preceded it for money.

Those are in the NFL. UFL gets the best of what's leftover. Guys will join if they want to be on TV playing pro football. players certainly had the opportunity to voice their demand for year round health insurance before they agreed not to receive it by written contract.

they are 1 year contracts. the contract terminates if they sign with an NFL team. if they go back to the UFL, their former team owns their rights. they have a union, so there are dues no doubt. there is a $400 a week and $55 ad day voucher for housing and food, respectively. there is a 401K plan. none really relevant to the topic of health insurance. but the answer to "did you sign a contract that included year round health insurance?", the clear answer is "no"....

same as any contract. if you willfully signed a contact that does not include health insurance coverage then it's harder to bargain for it after the fact.